Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu
Two men were walking through the forest and happened across a glass
ball lying on the carpet of twigs and fir needles. There were hardly
any sounds other than the pair's own footsteps and certainly no signs
of other people. But the very obvious inference from the evidence of
the ball was that someone had put it there. Now one of these men was a
scientist, trained in the modern view of origins, and the other a
layman. The layman said, "What if the ball were larger, say ten feet
around, would you still say that someone put it there?" Naturally, the
scientist agreed that a larger ball would not affect his judgment.
"Well, what if the ball were huge--a mile in diameter?" probed the
layman. His friend responded that not only would someone have put it
there, but that there should be an investigation to find out what
caused the ball to be there. The layman then pursued one more
question, ''What if the ball were as big as the whole universe? If
little balls need causes, and bigger balls need causes, doesn't the
biggest ball of all need a cause too?"
The Bible's views on the origins of the universe, first life, and new
life forms, have caused many to falter in their acceptance of the
Scriptures as truth. Modern science claims to have proven them wrong
beyond a shadow of a doubt. The theory of evolution is now posited as
fact. Who is right, the Bible or science?
This problem will be dealt with by stating a basic argument, then
applying that argument to the three areas of origins: the universe,
first life, and new life forms. But before we embark, let's be sure
that we understand what evolution is and how modern evolutionists view
origins.
Most of us think of evolution as an invention of Charles Darwin in
1859, but it is really a very old view that has naturalistic
philosophical roots. Non-theists say the universe is uncaused—it just
always was and will be. All matter (if it exists in any sense) carries
in it the principles of life. The idea of life arising from nonliving
things is not a problem with this starting point. Indeed, it would be
inevitable. Equally certain would be the progress from less complex
life forms to more complex ones, since all things would be ever
striving toward perfection and the realization of higher states.
Modern evolution does not look very much like this picture. Since many
scientists are materialistic, they hold to the basic design but
without the spiritual connotations. However, without the spiritual
aspects guiding the system, there is no mechanism to explain the
progress of species. Enter Charles Darwin. He provided a mechanism to
make evolution work beginning with matter alone. He called it natural
selection. Much of what Darwin taught has been rejected and surpassed
by modern evolutionists, but the doctrine of natural selection has
been maintained.
As to the origin of the universe, classic evolutionists have said that
the world was uncaused. Carl Sagan has expressed this in his saying,
''The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." [Carl Sagan,
Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 4] This view is still being
taught by those who have not kept up with new discoveries in cosmology
(study of the universe), Evolutionists also teach that life first
began as a result of chemical reactions in what Darwin called a ''warm
little pool." Research done in the last thirty years has shown that it
is possible to generate some amino acids necessary for life using only
a few basic gases, water, and an electrical charge. This has
encouraged the view that life arose from nonliving matter. As to new
life forms, these are said to have evolved through natural selection.
As the conditions of the earth changed, animals adapted new
characteristics to meet the new challenges. Those who adapted survived
and those that did not passed into extinction. The great variety of
extinct animals found in fossils and their similarities to living
species are used to confirm this thesis. If virtually all scientists
agree on these principles and have the evidence to prove it, can we
still believe the Bible?
[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]
Uncle Vic
> QUESTIONS ABOUT SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION
>
> Two men were walking through the forest
...when they happened upon a large bear. One knelt to pray, the other
knelt and tightened his Nikes. "What are you doing?" cried the
other. "You can't outrun this bear!"
"I don't have to," said the other. "I only have to outrun you."
There you are, PooHoo, evolution driven by natural selection.
--
Uncle Vic
2011
Pahu
Let it first be said that we need not argue on religious grounds. We
do not need to simply stand firm crying, ''The Bible said it; I
believe it; that settles it!" That attitude can be good, but there are
good scientific grounds to reject evolution and believe in Creation.
In fact, it is all based on the whole idea of what science is.
Science is based on causality; every event has a cause. Things don't
happen willy-nilly. Even if we can't know specifically what particular
cause produced a certain event, we can say what kind of cause it must
have been because of the kinds of effects we see today. The idea that
whatever caused some effect in the past will cause the same effect in
the present is called the principle of uniformity. All science is
based on finding causes using these two principles: causality and
uniformity.
When scientific principles were first being developed into the
scientific method, scientists like Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler,
Issac Newton, and William Kelvin made a distinction between primary
and secondary causes. A primary cause was a first cause that explained
singularities—events that only happened once and had no natural
explanation. Secondary causes were thought of as natural causes and
laws that govern the way things normally operate. Unfortunately, some
scientists began using supernatural causes to explain natural
irregularities like earthquakes and meteors. When the truth was
learned about these things, scientists eliminated primary causes from
consideration altogether and sought to explain everything in terms of
natural causes. But just as it was wrong for super-naturalists to
explain ordinary events using primary causes, it is also wrong for the
naturalist to explain all singularities by natural causes.
Pahu
Pahu
DanielSan
So, where's the argument against Evolution?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it? *
****************************************************