Hmmm... The creator of the chart uses the chart as a tool to argue for atheism..... the theory that there is no god, no creator of humankind or earth. How can one argue for or against the existence of One Who is Invisile?
Atheism is anchored firmly in the theory of evolution..... As if evolution can prove or disprove the existence of a creator.
There is plenty of evidence to support today's theory of evolution through natural selection -which makes it difficult for a well educated, logical person to accept the idea of a creator
- but not impossible. In the very least one can challenge a person's thinking about it.
The Language of God--- a book written by the present head of the human genome project--- (http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/074328639) brings up some interesting points---- why do humans and other species put themselves at risk to save another? That goes against the theory of evolution through natural selection aka "survival of the fittest!"
A problem encountered by Christians when defending their faith, is the need to put down evolution-- which is now the central dogma of science-- especially biology..... And while it is undeniable that natural selection is easily observed in bacteria and viruses, due to their rapid multiplicative reproductive patterns, they are still bacteria. Other species evolve much slower, but even then---- they only differ in speciation, not genera, family, orders, and definitely not classes.
The thread for the theory of evolution runs tightly woven in every explanation given for physiological processes, for example: "why do men produce sperm daily, while at birth, women have all the ova they will ever have? According to evolutionists, women are going to be more committed to the offspring (for 9 months in a human female uterus and an indefinite time nursing) ---while men do not have a reproductive commitment (aka evolutionary need) to guard ova so carefully. The answer to anything in biology is nowadays related to the theory of evolution.... But be not deceived-- there are other plausible explanations to the same questions. So...... Going back to the chart.... What/who will define a fallacy in proof/evidence for evolution? What will suffice? Will it be vestigial structures ( remember how the tonsils were once in that list? --- now we know they are NOT vestigial), will it be embryology, (remember the now defunct phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"). Will it be fossils?-Remember how we used to think that dinosaurs were more related to lizards than birds? Will it be homologous and analogous structures, or just DNA? The latter is causing an upheaval of the phylogenetic trees we have been using for years!!!!
I guess what I am trying to articulate is that one ought not forget that theories are the best explanations we have at the time with the information we have at the time. They cannot be proven correct , but with updated information, can be proven wrong.
So was the case of Lamark's giraffes, the spontaneous generation of life theory debunked by Francesco Redi and many others.
Not understanding a principle, does not make that principle wrong or false or untrue-- a point that both atheists and Christians can agree on. Different groups access different sources of information... and as information is updated, so are theories..... Faith on the other hand..... well....is rooted on the evidence of things hoped for--- so as far as we can tell both groups, atheists and Christians are operating on faith, for neither was there when it all began, and no offense to Oparin (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Oparin's_Hypothesis)
or Miller and Urey (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html) no one can know or replicate what it used to be for sure. (Hebrews1:1-2: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for." NIV
If we just wait long enough, another theory will evolve... wait for it .... It takes a looong time.....
Eileen Roach
No comments:
Post a Comment