by Gavin Cox

British secularists are yet again up in arms about teaching creationism in schools—this time in Welsh schools. But Welsh schools are not actually teaching creationism, and it’s not as though creationists have been pushing for it either. The fact of the matter is, since humanists erupted in 2011 over the inclusion of the creationist perspective in a religious education class,1 teaching creationism in science classes has already been effectively banned in British schools, even including religious education classes! So why have 46 leading science organisations and scientists, including British atheist big-guns Richard Dawkins, David Attenborough, Steve Jones and Alice Roberts, joined forces in a campaign to ban teaching creationism in Welsh schools?

In what can only be described as a highly cynical move, they have written to the Welsh Government expressing their deep concern that a new draft Welsh science curriculum could “increase the possibility of teaching creationism as science”.2 Increase the possibility? The campaign, unsurprisingly, is organised by the British Humanist Society (BHS), who also ran the ‘Teach evolution, not creationism!’ campaign in England in 2012. This led to the ban on creationism (mentioned above), which saw evolution added to the British National Curriculum for primary schools. The BHS’s latest alarmist clarion call demands that any possible loop holes be closed, and potential weaknesses in the Welsh curriculum be exposed—lest these somehow be exploited by those ‘pernicious creationists’, masquerading as science teachers!

Evolution: a self-refuting philosophy

So why get so hot-under the collar about it all? Why the panic? After all, if God doesn’t exist, as the BHS signatories proclaim, why the rush to censor all references to His existence or creative design within schools? Furthermore, evolution, as a philosophy, is self-refuting, in that nothing can be truly known if we really are merely the sum-total of random, meaningless processes. Therefore, no concept of ultimate truth, including the ideas that creationism is bad or evolution is true, can be defended within the atheist world-view. Critical thinking must actually be sacrificed by these humanist campaigners, in favour of empty dogmatism.

Indeed, science itself was rooted within the biblical worldview, and the founding fathers of the major branches of science, were practically all Bible-believing creationists. The fact that science should work at all is testament to the existence of an Ultimate law giver, one who created a logical universe that can be comprehended by His creatures. Atheist Richard Dawkins, one of the signatories of the BHS letter, once infamously stated the implication of evolution for ‘truth’:

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”3

He is wrong of course, for the design in the universe is real, not apparent. Furthermore, can you think of a more damaging doctrine to teach the next generation than the one Dawkins espouses? In the minds of those who succumb to its tenets, such thinking divests them of any basis for ultimate truth, knowledge, morality, or human dignity and value.

Censored and silenced

The fundamental problem for the BHS and those who are leading this latest campaign, is that the new draft Welsh science and technology curriculum doesn't explicitly prohibit the teaching of creationism. But that surely is a given, since the carpet-ban against creationism came into force in British schools in 2012. However, apparently not content with the censorship that already exists, they are pushing for evolution to be more actively taught in Welsh primary schools, rather than waiting until the age of 14–15 years. So, in reality, it is not the creationists who are attempting to exploit the system to their advantage, rather it’s those who are pushing a godless, atheistic agenda. These people seek to expunge all religious faith, replacing it with a religion of materialism. Such militant atheism cannot tolerate even one instance of a dissenting voice. It recoils in horror at the idea of questioning Darwin in the minds of the young and impressionable. So much for critical thinking!

The campaign letter represents a concerted effort by the BHS to pressure the Welsh Government with ‘science’,2 thereby silencing Welsh schools into submission. The letter (which can be seen in full on the BHS web site4) begins by expressing the collected sense of alarm of its signatories at the perceived areas of vulnerability in the new curriculum. The second paragraph of the letter boldly asserts that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”; they offer no citation for this dictum but it was originally stated by leading twentieth century evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky.5 However, the facts do not bear this out when it comes to most biologists’ day jobs. It has been stated that evolution’s "day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology", and furthermore, it can be shown that evolution has harmed science and society.

Who is denying whom?

The BHS letter continues that evolution must be taught to primary school children, so that “children in Wales are not exposed to pseudoscientific doctrines masquerading as science.”4 Welsh Humanists Coordinator (for BHS) Kathy Riddick comments further that it is “very worrying” that there is no explicit ban on creationism in Welsh schools. In her opinion, “This would deny Welsh students the right to a high quality, evidence-based education that enables them to understand how life came to be, to reason scientifically, and to be equipped to tackle misinformation in everyday life.”4 But it would deny no such thing and is an illogical claim! How can removing a competing paradigm in any argument better enable children to develop critical thinking? How can they better reason scientifically if they are not even allowed to critique the opposing side’s claims?

Denying the right to know that a competing paradigm even exists is censorship, plain and simple. One can only shake one’s head in disbelief at the obsessive paranoia displayed by the BHS and those who have signed their latest letter. Such efforts seek to completely excise from public life all vestiges of the Christian worldview, that which underpins our laws and institutions, culture and education, and the foundations of science.

Always a silver lining

However, there is hope. God can and does use the message of creation to reach pupils, parents and teachers with the message of salvation, even if creation is censored from the schools. That is why CMI’s primary ministry focus is to the Church, and it is through many Christian testimonies, and by being armed with good apologetic materials—such as CMI’s Creation magazine or Creation.com articles—that the battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation can be effectively waged.

Source: https://creation.com/censorship-creation-schools

vaxx1:
The topic is indirect insult to science. it depicts the ignorance of the writter. let the op use goggle to study the difference between law, fact and theory as it is pertaining to science.

Okay.

.

Up.

.

Read, people.

EmperorHarry:
I fail to see how a wise and all knowing being would regret it's actions to the point it decides all of nature should suck it except those aboard the Noah's cruise ship.You overestimate the wisdom and all knowingness of God.

Let me reply you with this answer by Christian Courier. It comes very close to what is in my mind:

First, let us demonstrate what the passage cannot mean.

It does not mean that God created the human family, expecting that it would remain loyal to him, but that, eventually, humanity strayed. The Lord was then disappointed, and so regretted he had made us. That cannot be the meaning for the following reasons.

God is omniscient.
God knows everything. “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite” (Psa. 147:5). If the Lord’s understanding is infinite, he must have known, before he created man, that he would fall.

God planned for human sin before creation.
This is further evidenced by the fact that the plan of salvation was purposed before humanity was created.Paul affirms that God “chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world,” and that our redemption was “through [Jesus’] blood” (Eph. 1:4,7; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2; Rev. 13:8 ).

Since the sacrifice for human sin was provisioned even before the world was created, it necessarily follows that our Creator knew we would transgress long before Adam and Eve were placed in Eden.

In What Way Did God Repent?
How, then, is Genesis 6:6 to be explained?

There are several figures of speech in the Bible that accommodate the human level of understanding. One is anthropomorphism (man form), where physical features are ascribed to God, e.g., the eyes of the Lord (1 Pet. 3:12), Jehovah’s arm (Jn. 12:38), etc.These depict God’s watchfulness and his power.

There is another figure called anthropopathism (man feeling), whereby human emotions are sometimes attributed to God. To say, therefore, that God “repented,” or that he was “grieved,” is simply a symbolic way of asserting that man’s conduct did not meet the divine standard. This language vividly portrays, from a human perspective, God’s displeasure at our rebellion.

Source: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/627-genesis-6-6-did-god-repent

Would you admit that God doesn't know all and is somehow limited by things we can't comprehend?If you could make everybody happy today,would you suffer any soul another second of unhappiness? If your prolly thinking " What if the instant happiness is detrimental to creation and the existence of this creation ",then I ask you to reason from the same perspective that there are limitations for God.

we could think up a billion and one things that Omnipotence should be able to do, but they don't have to fit into the definition of Omnipotence as it describes God. Really.

EmperorHarry:
I specifically referred to the bible for the same reason but needed to first acknowledge all records to avoid being accused of favouritism.I also wanted to reply your quotes one at a time but realised it can all be summed up in one question..Why would you choose such commands if there are alternatives or if it can be avoided all together?

You see, you're talking about alternatives, but that can only come up when you don't recognize that God is all wise and all knowing, and that He follows the best course of action. You may as well retort, "why did God choose the method which he chose to provide salvation for man?". But does He not know best?

EmperorHarry:
I disagree with you because not all God commands is beneficial to nature and humans if we are using commandments found in major religious books as an objective paradigm.

I speak about the Bible and Christianity. I don't really come defending all of religion.

Burnt offerings weren't beneficial to nature in respect to the climate and animal life.

Burnt offering system was instituted by God in His wisdom for man to do as a means of obtaining pardon for his sins (actually as an expression of Faith in the Lamb of God to come in the future), without which he would not have obtained pardon for his sins, and he would have been destroyed justly for his sins, together with the home prepared for him, which is the Earth and everything in it, including the animals. (Yes, the Earth was made for man). But if he practices the burnt offering, he obtains pardon from God, and he is sure of life everlasting in the world which God will make anew, and which will contain even animals, where the Lion and the lamb shall lie down together. (Isa. 11:16)

Death of all first born sons of Egyptians wasn't beneficial to humanity on account of favouritism of a particular people.

It is beneficial on an overall basis in the sense that it was a last resort (after nine others) punishment (both for the evil ones among the firstborns who were killed and for the evil nation at large, who refused to discern the finger of God in the nine previous plagues), as well as a call to repent and honour the true God who had the power to give and take life (and who would eventually destroy them if they did not come to live right as much as they had knowledge), as opposed to the powerless idols they worshipped. I believe anyone who followed the Israelites to do God's instruction of putting blood on the doorpost was spared. Even if innocent people (e.g. babies who have not reached the age of knowing good and bad) were killed by the angel that night, they will be resurrected at last, when the righteous resurrect, and live forever.

Almost obliterating all of the nature because of one species isn't beneficial to creation.

It is in the sense that the total corruption of humanity was going to happen, and hasten the descent of God's wrath on man, therefore God wiped out the evil men who refused to go into the ark. Plants are growing again on earth. Animals were preserved on the ark. So what else? The most important of God's creation is man, which He made in His own image, and which He gave His only begotten Son to save. When man is present, that is when we can begin to talk about his home, the Earth, which includes animals and other things.

Job.

You can glean the answer from the case of the Egyptian firstborns. If anything results in the death of an innocent man, such a man will be resurrected at last to live forever. God repaid Job for his suffering (and will still repay him in the world to come.) But what is more? The story of Job has served to encourage people to remain true to God despite the hardest of adversities imaginable, and doing so will ensure their salvation, which is beneficial to humanity.

So "God said" is not all good or beneficial to creation.

It is. You have to show any of God's commandments which is not for the greater good of creation, even though it may involve momentary suffering.

Thoughts?

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”¹

A paraphrase of the dilemma, and how it concerns Christianity, is given thus: “Does God command a thing because it is good, or is a thing good because God commands it?”

The dilemma is that if God commands a thing because it is good (objectivism), then it means that there is a moral standard which exists outside of God, and that when God commands a thing, He merely conveys those moral principles to us. And if a thing is good because God commands it (divine command theory), then it means that morality is arbitrary, and that, for example, God can decide at any time to command what he presently forbids.

On the side of each of the horns of the dilemma you will find supporters, each group pointing out the problems with the other position. Christian apologists have, however, pointed out that the dilemma is a case of false dichotomy, meaning that there is a third option which the dilemma ignores. And that third option, they say, is that the standard for good is God’s nature/God Himself. As such, a thing is good if it approximates God’s character or nature.

This is where I weigh in. For me, the whole discourse hinges on the definition of the word “good” as it appears in the dilemma. What is good? (And by extension, what is bad?) One option is to say that there is no such thing as objective “good” (and thus, no such thing as objective “bad”). This is in essence moral nihilism. But if there is no such thing as good or bad, then there can’t even be any discussion in the first place.

But if, for example, we define good in this context as “acceptable”, the question comes again: “acceptable to whom”? Any entity that can be given in answer to the question can be legitimately labelled as an arbiter of moral truth. (Indeed anything that is given as the definition of “good” would still necessarily appeal to an entity as the standard.)

But then if we accept that “good” is what is acceptable to God, the dilemma vanishes, and we have it that, well, what is good is what is acceptable to God. However, if at all any entity qualifies for us to say that “good” is what is acceptable to such an entity, then it is God Himself, because He is the Creator of all things, and his nature and character are changeless (Malachi 3:6). Indeed Christians view the commandments of God as emanating from principles which are the very character and nature of God.

A Change of Focus

But what if we shift the focus of the entire discourse to creation (even as the entire focus of God’s love is on His creation), and define “good” in this context as “beneficial to creation”? This shift in definition of “good” is necessitated by the fact that in the end, when God metes out judgments on the wicked based on how they have rebelled against his commandments, everyone, the wicked themselves inclusive, will voluntarily agree that God’s judgments are good and just. (Revelations 16:7; 19:2) Thus we can agree that when, in the end, God’s judgments are proclaimed “good and just”, they are described as beneficial to creation.

Thus, a paraphrase of the dilemma would now be “Does God command a thing because it is beneficial to creation, or is a thing beneficial to creation because God commands it?” If we define “beneficial” along the lines of “preserving the existence of creation and its happiness in existence”, then I would say that a thing is beneficial to creation because God commands it. After all, the greatest benefit to creation in this case would be its very existence which God Himself gave to it. And if, acting from the principles of His changeless character (Malachi 3:6), He brought creation from non-existence into existence, then it is logical to conclude that, based on those principles of His changeless character, all His commandments will forever be towards the preservation of creation in existence and the preservation of its happiness in existence.


Source: https://doctoralien.home.blog/2019/07/10/on-the-eutyphro-dilemma/

,,.

Here's the full verbatim quote by Jacques Cousteau:

"What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It's a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species.

It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. [Yet Cousteau did say it!] But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."

by Lita Cosner

Normally, when someone goes to college, we can assume they are competent in their specialization. But when someone claims to be an ethicist, what comes out of their mouth is so predictably absurd and satanic that it’s not even interesting anymore. So when philosopher and author of Secular Ethics in a Materialist Age Todd May wrote a New York Times piece entitled ‘Would human extinction be a tragedy?’,1 one hardly needs to read it to know that May thinks, on balance, it could be quite a good thing for the earth if humans were no longer on it. However, he is wrong in several key areas.

‘Nature’ is not benevolent

Of course, May does not ask his question from the point of view of the only thing in all of creation that has a category for ‘tragedy’, but of nature itself. Given that, from his point of view, human beings are causing climate change, turning habitats into farmland, and causing untold suffering through factory farming, might it be better if humans weren’t around?

Often, secularists think of ‘Nature’ as an overall benevolent force, and humans as an infestation, parasite, or disease—harming nature, draining the earth’s resources, and displacing far more valuable creatures. Only someone who has never seen one of the nature documentaries where a cute antelope gets disemboweled by a lion can have such a naïve view of ‘nature’.

Maybe the antelope would be momentarily better off if its grasslands weren’t turned into farms [by humans]. But they would still have to deal with predators. So maybe we should remove them [all the antelope's predators], too? But then the antelope would reproduce out of control and graze the grasslands bare. Then erosion would go out of control, devastating the whole ecosystem, killing the antelope.2 If we’re going to personify a non-sentient idea, Nature is a jerk. There’s no post-Fall solution that eliminates suffering entirely. If one cause of suffering is eliminated, another inevitably arises in its place.

When we come to the issue with a biblical view of creation, we recognize that God created the world good, and while it is now fallen, it retains much of its goodness. Humans were given the task of being the earth’s stewards; this entails maintaining and improving creation, fighting the effects of the Fall, while at the same time using creation for our own benefit.

Thinking both too much and too little of humans

Secularists give humanity too much power and value human life too little. They credit humans with the ability to single-handedly devastate the world, most often through climate change. But while they will fight tirelessly for whales and endangered beetles, and lobby for draconian penalties for damaging the eggs of an endangered bird, they encourage killing unborn, disabled, elderly, or other ‘inconvenient’ humans.

A biblical view of humanity recognizes that the image of God makes us more valuable than animals. It doesn’t justify us inflicting needless suffering on animals, or recklessly polluting the world. And most recognize that it is best for humans to conserve the resources we will continue to depend on for the foreseeable future.

The inconsistency of secular environmentalism

This environmental ethic is fundamentally inconsistent. Why should we care about nature, let alone contemplate our own extinction as a possible good for the world? If Darwinism is true, why should we care about the survival of endangered species? Whatever animals are not strong enough to withstand evolution’s scythe do not deserve to survive. If evolution is true, humans are just apes with overdeveloped prefrontal cortices, and have no more responsibility to the species we might threaten than the lion has to the antelope.

The Darwinist wants to value us as mere animals while giving us the moral responsibility of the image of God, but they cannot have it both ways.

Sadly, May is not the only example of this sort of misanthropic thinking being advanced. No less than the founder of CNN, Ted Turner, has said there are “too many people” on the planet and that’s why we have global warming. Turner wants a worldwide ‘pledge’ that one or two children is the maximum allowable amount.3 But close friend of Turner and famous environmentalist Jacques Cousteau4 went much further, saying that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day in order to stabilize the world population, and that even if we could eliminate disease we should not do so.5 Did Hitler ever achieve this efficiency? And would Turner privately agree with his late friend on this more direct course of action?

Conclusion

If the only thing distinctive about humans is the prefrontal cortex, opposable thumbs, and abstract reasoning, there’s no reason not to attempt the perverse calculus that might result in the conclusion that the world would be better off if humans went extinct. But if humans are the unique creations of God in His image, proposing our extinction is actually an attack on the Creator Himself. When we realize this, we can see the murderous satanic undertones of secular ethics.

Source

,.,

,,

,

..

Neymar1095:

The classic response has too many holes.

Okay.

God knows what you will do, what you think, why you think what you think.

Any problem with that?

Everything negative that you think can be attributed to either genetics or environmental disposition.

Not true. Sin arose in the heart of Lucifer in a holy environment in Heaven. Man too had no genetic tendencies predisposing him to sin when he fell.

There are no such things as thoughts created entirely from individuality,

This would have been true if atoms alone jumbled and jumbled for billions of years to produce man and everything in him. Then it would mean that human thoughts are but results of random interaction of atoms with themselves. But God created man with a mind capable of thinking, and with a conscience, and with the ability and freedom to make choices that he truly wants.

because every possible 'cause' was made by God himself.

what according to you is the cause of man's thoughts?

To make the concept simpler to follow, it's similar to a man holding a hostage and forcing the hostage to make a choice of whether or not to help the criminal.

This analogy doesn't apply here. Rather than being held "hostage", man is actually very free to do whatever he wants. Or are you not?

Yes he has 'free choice' but 'free choice' and 'free will' are entirely different.

Really? Can you differentiate between both?

There is no free will when it comes to God because he laid out the terms for you. Help him out, worship him or face spiritual death.

I see you have qualms with the fact that choices have consequences. But have you imagined living in a world where choices don't have consequences?

Swissh:
Assuming God is omnipotent and omniscient that also created everything,

Right

he is ultimately responsible for everything that is happening in the world.

Not quite. He is not responsible for sin.

He is responsible because he knew beforehand everything that will happen.

Can you explain how having a knowledge of the future makes God responsible for what beings with the ability and freedom to choose to do what they truly want to do, will do in the future?

Even the terrible things.

No. Misuse of the the ability to choose between right and wrong which God gave to created beings is the reason why there are terrible things in existence. Can you tell me example of "terrible" things though?

He allowed everything in this universe to happen.

This is more like it. He "allowed". Now what is the only other option to "allowing"? It is to create beings without the ability to choose to do what they truly want i.e. to create essentially robots which do only the things He wants them to do, with no power and freedom to do otherwise. It is not to create beings with the ability and freedom to makes choices that they truly want, and then interfere with their ability and freedom to do so.

Imagine a being with infinite power that also has knowledge of everything that ever was and ever will be. That's Gods most common definition.

True.

He is aware of everything bad in this world and even created it.

How? When God created the world, nothing was bad in the world. Absolutely nothing. If you're talking about God having knowing that things would still go wrong in the future, well, the only other option was to not create beings with freewill.

There are good things in the world,

A lot, refreshingly.

but that doesn't take away from the fact that God also allows his creations to suffer.

Yeah. He too suffers from what His Creation does. Jesus had to die to provide salvation for rebellious man (such love!) But He will not allow sin and suffering to continue forever, nor has He allowed it to continue for a while without a reason - the full development, before the spectatorship of the whole universe, of the character of sin and rebellion with all their inseparable attendant effects (unhappiness, injustice and suffering) will serve as an eternal safeguard to the peace and bliss which will exist when God finally annihilates sin and sinners, and only holy beings inhabit the worlds that He will make anew.

So, try to inform me on why God is NOT responsible for everything that is suffering, and everything that has suffered in the world he created.

Simply, freewill. The ability to choose voluntarily to do what you truly want to do. However, choices and actions have consequences. Choosing to disobey God has, as consequences, suffering and death. That is in fact what is happening in the world today.

And why you choose to believe such a God exists?

Because the Bible says so.

budaatum:

.

But I, CMI, and many others have been doing that since God knows when. Or are you gonna deny that I have been stressing the fact of worldviews and their overwhelming influence in our positions?

You, on the other hand, are the one whose acceptance of this basic truth can come into question.

budaatum:


We should try and openly admit.

Openly admit what?

adoyi8:
Debating with theists about science is difficult;

I disagree.

sometimes they try to undermine science and pitch against God especially when the topic is about limitation of science.

How? Explain better please.

Other times they say that Science is not synonymous to atheism

Before nko? Who said science was synonymous to atheism?

and mention some major contributors of science which are/were theists.

Very important people.

Now my question to OP is this; are you pro or anti-science.

Of course I'm pro-science. But again it depends on what the definition of "science" is.

Johnydon22, do you remember the discussion we had in which I stated that creationism is my worldview, and I described it as a "lens" through which I view things? It appears secular researchers, while acknowledging the reality of worldviews and its role in everything especially science, have described worldviews with the same term I used: "lens".

And I didn't even know of this paper when we were having that discussion.

by Paul Price

Evolutionists often claim that science is objective and unbiased, while religion (and by extension, creationism) is biased and dogmatic. True science, they claim, is not about ideology. These skeptics downplay the significance of worldviews, and how they control the interpretation of scientific data.

In response to this naïve view of science, creationist organizations such as CMI have, for many years now, been emphasizing the overwhelming power of worldviews to control and guide scientists’ interpretations—especially when dealing with the unobservable past. Evidence does not speak for itself. It must always be interpreted in light of an a priori worldview. This emphasis has been generally so limited to creationists that many have come to associate it with them exclusively, as if only creationists believe or understand that worldviews control science (rather than science controlling worldviews).

In an encouraging turn of events, a secular peer-reviewed paper published in eLIFE, written by a team from the NMBU Centre for Applied Philosophy of Science at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, backs up this understanding of the importance of worldviews. Their article is entitled, “Philosophy of Biology: Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid.”

In this article, the authors make some very salient observations that few others in the secular community seem to like to openly discuss. For example, in the abstract they write,

"Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these ‘philosophical biases’ cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science."

This is quite true! If only more philosophers of science would openly admit this very fundamental problem facing science as a whole, we might see a world with much greater academic freedom to challenge established paradigms (like evolution). Another important quote:

"Basic philosophical assumptions count as biases because they skew the development of hypotheses, the design of experiments, the evaluation of evidence, and the interpretation of results in specific directions."

Yes, and this skewing effect is exactly what we see in the mainstream scientific community as they systematically reject any and all mention of the idea of design in life, or of the existence of our Creator. These ideas are excluded by definition in a dogmatic fashion, and this is nothing other than a philosophical bias.

"We saw that basic assumptions are fundamental premises for science. They represent the lens through which we see new information. So even when these assumptions are explicated and challenged, all we can do is replace them with alternative biases."

This language, even using the term ‘lens’ to describe the function of these ‘basic assumptions’ (worldviews), directly mirrors language used in articles on our site such as Gary Bates’ Soil, trees and their fruit. This amounts to a powerful vindication of what CMI and other creation organizations have been proclaiming for years, coming from a secular ‘mainstream’ source.

The purpose of this paper is primarily to engage scientists in more critical thinking and debate, and that is something I heartily encourage. The authors mention that applying criticism to our basic philosophical biases “stops science from becoming a dogmatic enterprise.” Unfortunately, the authors missed a great opportunity to mention the greatest philosophically-driven dogma of them all in biology: evolution. As we know from past experience2, though, if they had dared to bring up this sacred cow, it is doubtful they would have escaped unscathed (assuming the article would have been published at all). For the Christian, this general unwillingness to entertain the idea of God by the elites and ‘rulers of this world’ should come as no surprise, as it is predicted by Scripture in many places:

For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:15–17)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (Romans 1:18–19)

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7–8 )

The book of Revelation gives us a clue to this also, saying that Satan is “the deceiver of the whole world” in Revelation 12:9. Rejecting our Creator in the world of science is only one facet of this great worldwide deception, but when we see it happening we should not lose heart but be encouraged, as even this is further evidence of the truth of Scripture.

Source

sagenaija:
Amazing!

So, when there is no proof that what they want to prove is correct that still makes it a fact.

How did these "scientists" determine that there was "no change in the physical-biological environment" for billions of years?

And these same ones will also claim that environmental changes led to the extinction of some species.

How even men with intelligence can dump rational thinking to support their point of view is truly amazing.

Exactly bro. No matter what is observed today, evolutionists are ready to accommodate it within their stories. Anything at all.

..

.

Antispam bot

Across a supposed evolutionary history of over two billion years, seabed sulfur bacteria haven’t changed

by David Catchpoole

In a pronouncement that makes the Orwellian black-is-white ‘doublethinking’ Newspeak of the ‘Ministry of Truth’1 seem tame by comparison, evidence of a lack of evolution is proclaimed as evidence for evolution! Here’s the exact wording from one science news outlet:

“An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported—a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years. But the researchers say that the organisms’ lack of evolution actually supports Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.”

The team of researchers were led by J. William Schopf, director of the UCLA3 Center for the study of Evolution and the Origin of Life—so it’s hardly surprising that their origins framework would be evolution, by default.

Their scientific paper records that the Western Australian fossils of sulfur bacteria they observed are “indistinguishable” from modern sulfur bacteria found living off the coast of South America in 2007.4 If the researchers had left it at that, no problem. But they get themselves into difficulty by adopting an evolutionary timeline. Namely, they apply a ‘date’ of 1.8 billion years to their fossils (and 2.3 billion years to identical-looking sulfur bacteria fossils found earlier in the same region). Hence they are confronted with the challenge of why the sulfur bacteria “have exhibited an exceedingly long-term lack of discernable change”—i.e. “extreme evolutionary stasis”.

As Professor Schopf, mired in his evolutionary presuppositions, observed:

“It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years—over half the history of the Earth. Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.”

Evolution is not a fact, but Schopf is right about stasis being a problem for evolutionists. In their paper, Schopf and his colleagues attempt to address the problem. Note, however, that the key assumption underlying their proffered ‘explanation’ of the absence of evolution over more than two billion years is that the environment in which the sulfur bacteria live hasn’t changed during that time:

“If there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, there should be no speciation, no evolution of the form, function, or metabolic requirements of its biotic components.”

In other words,

“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin. These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable environment. If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”

But even then, history shows that no matter what evolutionary ‘doctrines’ are overturned, the ‘big picture’ of evolution itself (that particles have somehow turned into people—and everything else—is never doubted. It’s like the proverbially unlosable coin-toss: Heads—evolution is true; tails—creation is false. Thus the record-breaking evolutionary stasis of sulfur bacteria is presented as being “confirmation of Darwin’s theory” and that “it fits perfectly with his ideas.” In short, no evolution = evolution. The ‘doublespeak’ of the news and education controllers in George Orwell’s fictional Nineteen Eighty-Four seems awfully real here.

However, the proposition that the environment has not changed goes against evolutionary notions of earth’s history including periods of ‘snowball earth’, which supposedly occurred in the timeframe claimed for these bacteria.

And there’s another parallel with that Orwellian dystopian novel, too. Its ‘Ministry of Truth’— modelled on Stalinist Russia—had responsibility for the falsification of historical events, as the government deemed necessary. Similarly, those who support evolutionary theory are actually promoting the falsification of the historical events of Genesis creation (about 6,000 years ago) and the global Flood of Noah (about 4,500 years ago).

They deny the Flood, and then co-opt its worldwide legacy of mountains of fossil-bearing strata as instead being evidence of deposition over billions of years. And by denying creation, in their minds there’s no Creator to whom one must account for ‘bearing false witness’ about history. So perhaps it’s not surprising that they propose what would otherwise seem totally unreasonable. Namely, the ‘just-so’ story that the muddy environment of these sulfur bacteria—remember ‘environment’ also includes the presence and action of myriad other organisms that have supposedly evolved in the same timeframe—hasn’t changed in nigh on three billion years.

Source

A very sad story. Reading this made me very emotional. Whenever and wherever the word of God is thrown out of the window, and error is allowed to prevail, injustice is inevitable.