This is going to be a very long article as it will deal with the article on what Oklahoma is trying to do and that means that specifics about the theory of evolution need to be dealt with. it also means dealing with the views of the supporters of evolution as well. The information addressed will be taken from the following website
but no special divisions will be made to differentiate between the points. In other words, I will bold each point taken from the article but will not credit multiple sources. You will see those if you go to the link and read the article.
I will try to post a link and quote to support some of my comments to show that I am not making up comments although some of my comments may refer to historically held views and I am not sure if I can find the right credible links to support the point mentioned.
One of the advantages of being older is that one gets to see the changes in the evolutionary theory and know what ideas they once held as true but no longer admit to being part of the theory. One example of course is the origin of life but I will get into that later.
Last Tuesday, the Oklahoma Common Education committee considered HB 1674 — a House bill that would prevent teachers in science classes from penalizing students who contest evolutionary principles with untestable, faith-based claims.
It is an interesting Bill and I would think that if science teachers were truly scientific they would allow their students to make challenges to the evolutionary theory simply because the majority of evolutionary claims are faith-based and untestable. Case in point:
The fossilized animal, an arthropod called a fuxhianhuiid, has primitive limbs under its head, as well as the earliest example of a nervous system that extended past the head. The primitive creature may have used the limbs to push food into its mouth as it crept across the seafloor (http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/27/17119273-500-million-year-old-sea-creature-unearthed?lite)
That claim is untestable and faith-based as there is no way for the scientists to verify one thing they claim about that fossil–even its age. If evolutionists are going to call non-evolutionary ideas ‘untestable’ and ‘faith based’ then to avoid the double standard, the evolutionist must label their identical work as ignorance as well.
I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks,” says Blackwell, who previously spent 20 years working for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. “A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations.”
Many secular academics (evolutionary ones as well) demand academic freedom from Christian universities and schools. In other words, they want to think, write and say what they want regardless of the ideological position of the school or institution they are employed by. Yet if believers make that request from secular institutions, they are denied and the cries of opposition can be heard loud and clear.
If the evolutionist wants academic freedom for their ideas, then they must allow it for those people who disagree with their theory of evolution. If they don’t then we see censorship being done, we see exclusion of data and we see fear on the part of the evolutionist.
If their theory is true, then the evolutionist would have nothing to be afraid of with the presentation of alternatives to their ideas. As it stands, we know they squash and mock every attempt to do just that. In essence, they are forcing their ideas down people’s throats under the guise of ‘being scientific’ by disallowing dissent and debate. They are afraid and for good reason–their theory is not true.
They have to learn it in order to look at the weaknesses.” The sheer ignorance in that statement is hard to believe. I’m sure that it is followed in logic by, “Evolution is just a theory…”
It seems that ignorance is being used to fight supposed ignorance. In his book, The Art Of War, Shin Tzu wrote the following:
18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. (ch. 3 http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_suntzu.htm)
Thus the Oklahoma representative is correct in his thinking. A believer needs to know his ‘enemy’ (the theory of evolution) in order to find its weaknesses. If you discuss with those who oppose people who believe alternatives to the evolutionary theory and challenge it, you will soon see that the charges they hurl at their opponents actually apply to them.
To simply dismiss creation as religious ideology and without pointing out its weaknesses or why it is wrong only demonstrates the ignorance on the part of the evolutionist. Or to simply disallow supernatural data or religious ideas of origins based upon the mantra ‘those are not science’ displays an unwillingness to have an open and scientific mind and know their ‘enemy’.
It also demonstrates an irrational mindset that origins could only come via scientific endeavors and solutions. They have no proof that they are correct and they can not present anything that shows the Biblical creation to be false. They do not know their enemy but it would be wise for the believer to learn the evolutionary theory with God’s help so they can see why it is false.
There is a qualitative and quantitative difference between ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’. There is such an important distinction between ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’
The mistake in this idea by the author of the article is that ‘belief’ is used by scientists as well and it is based upon little knowledge. Returning to the story of the supposed 500-year-old fossil, you will see the words ‘may have’ in there (those and similar words are used so frequently by evolutionary scientists), such words indicate ‘belief’ not knowledge as they do not know.
Yes believers in Jesus use faith in accepting Genesis 1 as factual and true but that is because we were not there to see it take place. BUT such faith or belief is not done without some knowledge. Believers do compare and investigate all sides of the origins issue before making a decision, we have knowledge of alternatives and find them wanting.
Belief is not done blindly as we see the failures of the alternatives to produce and verify plausible alternatives. The advantage the Bible has is that both God and Jesus say to use faith. They do not say use evidence and a question no alternative to creation supporter has yet to answer is: Where in the Bible do both God and Jesus give permission to use science over their word?
There is no verse granting that position and when presented to those alternative supporters they do all sorts of tap dancing to get away from dealing with the implications of that question. Our knowledge of God and Jesus tells us to use our belief. Our knowledge of the alternatives also tells us to use our belief because those alternatives can’t use any other form to support their ideas.
It takes a lot of belief to accept evolution as true. There is so much evolutionists cannot verify that belief and faith are the very essence of their alternative–not knowledge. They have little knowledge of their claims thus to attack those who hold to belief is really attacking themselves.
Now the following few points come from the black box titled Evolution and has a host of sentences starting with ‘It does not mean…’
It does not mean Random
Yes it does as both the evolutionary process and the supposed natural selection system possess no property that would allow it to ‘guide’ life. They possess no intelligence, no foresight, no desires, nothing that is needed when acting as a guide. If anyone has ever worked on an assembly line they would know that the line itself may be ‘guiding’ the product from start to finish but the line itself is merely following orders from a higher intelligent being.
Evolution and natural selection, in their basic forms, are mere assembly lines with no ability to know what is useful, what is defective, what is to be retained or tossed out. They just follow orders and those orders must come from some superior intelligent being who was capable of designing the processes themselves.
Assembly lines do not pick up an existing piece of metal then ‘guide’ it into becoming a car. The assembly lines themselves have no concept of what a car is and no knowledge of how to guide the process and produce it. The assembly lines need to be operated by outside forces to work thus for the evolutionary theory to be true and to work, it needs an intelligent life form to design and operate it.
There is no other way for evolution to work. But according to secular evolutionists, the processes of evolution and natural selection designed and operate themselves while randomly picking a life form to attach to and guide it to complexity. Of course, that process is all random because neither processes have instructions on how to guide life and if they do then they have magically appeared somehow.
It does not mean to improve
If it does not improve then what good is it? How could it take a supposed one-celled common ancestor and guide it into complexity if it is not meant to improve. Obviously it does mean to improve or we would not be here.
What is the purpose of the process if it supposed to add nothing to the product it is producing? According to secular evolutionists, there is no other force in life so where would the ideas of improvement come from? it is quite obvious that the human form is an improvement over the one-celled molecule so we have to conclude that the evolutionary process did mean to improve.
Their denial makes no sense.
It does not mean morphing in a lifetime
This denial is just an escape route for evolutionists. It relieves them of the responsibility to provide real-time evidence that their theory is correct. They claim changes take millions of years so we will never see the evolutionary process in action.
So we are back to faith and belief and not knowledge for the evolutionist. If they cannot provide evidence for their theory, and they are the ones who demand physical evidence, then their theory is not true. The evolutionist attacks creationists because of the supposed lack of physical evidence to support the supernatural work of God BUT we are not required to produce evidence because God said to use FAITH.
The evolutionist is the one demanding physical evidence yet they cannot produce it for their own claims. They go to experiments that only show God’s genetic design at work and claim it is evolutionary but they cannot provide any evidence that it really is evolution at work.
What the above denial does is say that the evolutionist cannot put up but relies on a double standard to avoid realizing their theory is false. Since they cannot verify one claim they make, and that includes showing that the evolutionary and natural selection processes are actually responsible for the claimed changes, then the evolutionist has no theory for it has no physical evidence.
Also, with no historical documentation to compare their work against, their is nothing stopping them from making it all up and that is exactly what they are doing–they are making it all up simply because they do not believe the Bible.
It does not mean Abiogenesis
That is correct. The evolutionist has backed off of claims about the origin of life itself because they could not prove their ideas true. They used to make claims about the origin of life but once they found out it was impossible for their theory, they changed their theory and their tune. Here is what they say now:
Many lines of evidence help illuminate the origin of life: ancient fossils, radiometric dating, the phylogenetics and chemistry of modern organisms, and even experiments. However, since new evidence is constantly being discovered, hypotheses about how life originated may change or be modified. It’s important to keep in mind that changes to these hypotheses are a normal part of the process of science and that they do not represent a change in the basis of evolutionary theory. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml & http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html)
In other words, they have no clue, do not know and take wild guesses. If you watched the film Exposed, you would have seen one scientist claim crystals brought life to earth. Why is not answered and evolutionists cannot answer the ‘why’ question. Creationists can.
Evolutionists still need to prove the origin of the supposed process of evolution and natural selection and ow they attached themselves to a life form before they can claim they exist and are responsible for the supposed development of life. They lack so much as they do not know the original conditions of the earth at the time they claim life started and if they make claims that they do–they can’t verify them.
No evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life because it can’t.
It does not mean the origin of the universe
This one is a given and it can’t. But the evolutionist simply creates a second major problem for themselves. First, they can’t deal with the origins of life and now they can’t deal with the origin of the planets and the universe. That makes it a very weak theory and one where people would question believing it for it offers them nothing. Creation offers the God who is so powerful that He speaks and it comes into existence.
Creation offers something constructive to the world, someone powerful enough to help them overcome their problems. If that is ignorance then someone has the wrong definition of the word.
It does not mean amoral
Actually it does because the processes of evolution and natural selection possess no morality, no right or wrong, no goodness and so on. They possess nothing nor can they originate or pick it up somewhere along the way for they possess no cognitive powers to even contemplate such ideas or that they would be needed.
Some scientists have claimed that our idea of morality, social order and right & wrong came from apes:
Our oldest primate ancestors probably maintained social order the same way that most primates today maintain social order: through force exercised by dominant males…Behavioral and social evolution, in contrast, doesn’t leave behind that sort of evidence and so can’t be studied so well.
Instead, we end up with a lot of conjecture (http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/01/24/evolutionary-origins-of-morality.htm)
There are several problems with this and other ideas about the source of morality in human civilization. First, who says the supposed primates got it correct and that some other supposed ancestor had it wrong? Second, Do those animals actually grasp what they are doing and can define their behavior as moral?
Then if it changed with each different dominate male then are not the human evolutionist transferring their ideas onto animal behavior? basically, evolutionists cannot find an alternative source for morality thus they have to impose the human definition onto animal actions.
The main problem is that these ideas of evolutionary morality remove God’s ultimate standard for right and wrong, for morality and societal structure and replacing those with man-made regulations that are subjective depending upon who is in power at any point in history.
What this means is that the Allies could not declare Hitler’s or Mussolini’s idea of morality nor condemn them for their actions because both the former and latter ideas were of human origin and equal. There would not be a higher standard to judge which form of right and wrong or morality was correct and which one was wrong.
In other words, there would be no real right or wrong or moral behavior because those would be defined by who had the power to declare what was right, moral or not. Morality would be a human construct and not a divine one and one that was subject to change to fit the whims of the people at the time.
It does not address theological claims
Yes it does. as soon as you say the Bible is wrong, that God did not create everything as He said, then you have addressed theological claims. This point makes no sense at all and it is absurd to think that evolution does not address anything to do with the Bible.
Evolution means change over time
This what they claim bit their definition is too broad and includes anything and everything and that is just absurd. Not every change is evolutionary. This broad definition just relieves the evolutionist from producing real evidence of evolutionary work. No longer tied to being specific, when the evolutionist comes across a difficult problem their theory can’t support, they can hide in the broadness of the definition and turn to an easier problem.
If evolution were true, then they would not have to hide behind such non-definitive ideas. It is also laziness at work on the part of the evolutionary scientist.
If you deny that things change over time then you deny reality
No, you are actually acknowledging reality. god is the same yesterday, today and forever, if God changed then we have no God, no salvation and no hope. The truth also does not change, if it did, we would have no truth. This fact is what destroys the evolutionary theory.
The evolutionary support says that science changes thus it is good but in reality every change tells the world that the scientific community has no truth and no hope of finding it. It is in search of the truth. What was true for the evolutionary theory 100 years ago, 60 years ago and even 30 years ago is not longer considered the truth so how can anyone have confidence in that theory?
What it claims to be true at one time is replaced by another claim of truth and all that does is produce confusion and that is not of God. Evolutionists reject the truth of the Bible and they are left desperately trying to fill the void they created by that rejection and they can’t do it. For all they come up with is subjective human ideas that are easily replaced.
Jesus called it building in the sand and that is exactly what the evolutionist is doing. The creationist is building upon the rock and are not ignorant.
The theory of evolution attempts to explain the facts and connect the data
What facts? We do not need a human theory to explain anything, we have the truth in Genesis 1. ” In the beginning God created…” There is no need to explain that fact it is self-explanatory. The theory of evolution ‘attempts’ to explain the human invention of how origins took place but that is about it. Their supposed data is all built upon conjecture, assumption and wishful thinking and without hope of verification or physical evidence. Any evidence they say they have does not exclude God from the picture.
It does exclude their own theory because fossils do not show a timeline nor evolution in action. That part has to be read into the fossil by the evolutionist. Fossils do not provide one shred of evidence for the evolutionary process, its existence or the existence of the idea of natural selection. They are just animals or plants frozen in one brief moment of time and nothing more. Everything is inputed by the scientist, (influenced by their beliefs or non-beliefs) looking at the fossils.
If you think you can do better become a scientist and show us
Such a ridiculous challenge as not everyone can become a scientist and we do not need science to tell us about origins. Origins is in the theological realm not the scientific one and the later is an interloper, going where it does not belong and promoting itself as the authority when it has no right to say one thing about origins.
Origin did not come about via the scientific natural way but by God’s divine supernatural power and science has designed itself to omit such data thus it is looking for the wrong answers, down the wrong paths and in the wrong places.
Science has no business entering the issue of origins as that is beyond its scope and purpose. It is also trying to change what took place in the past to justify its interference. Science cannot verify one thing it claims about origins, it has nothing to offer on this issue thus even a blind squirrel could do better than science here.
If the last couple of hundred years have demonstrated anything to humankind it is this: belief will always lose to knowledge. Speculative superstitions will always prove less effective than actual knowledge.
The problem found here is that this supposed superior knowledge has to be proven to be true first. Not all knowledge is truthful or honest thus such generalizations are just immature and nonsensical.
No true belief has lost to knowledge yet but false knowledge as lost to true belief countless times. There has not been one scientific or archaeological discovery that has proven the Bible false–NOT 1! Claims have been made, based upon those discoveries, that the Bible has been shown to be false but upon further investigation and review, those claims were thwarted and defeated.
The only people using ‘speculative superstition’ are the evolutionists as they cannot verify one claim they make about the evolutionary process or natural selection. NOT 1! Neither exist. Many anti=creationists like to use the term magic for God’s creative work ut the only magic used is used by evolutionists.
They cannot produce the supposed original ancestor, the original environmental conditions, one historical claimed transition, they cannot show the evolutionary tree in action and on it goes. They are using magic and pseudo-science to make their theory seem factual.
But apparently, in Oklahoma, God is a sky ignoramus trying to make sure that he can pull people backwards several hundred years and make sure they remain in ignorance and stupidity.
This is just another ignorant and ridiculous statement made by he author of that article. As I pointed out earlier, there is no verse in the Bible that gives permission for people to use science over God’s word. God did not say processes ‘developed’ all things, God did not say an explosion in space started it all. He said, “I CREATED…” and that is what we are left to choose between.
The truth or the lie. God is truth and does not lie thus evolution had no part in origins, nor did the Big Bang. But the chose is not between ignorance and knowledge, the choice is between truth and lies. The Bible tells us that the devil is the father of lies and since Darwin and those before him who rejected God and went with an evolutionary idea; they, then, are not of God and did not speak the truth but lied. That makes them of the devil.
God said HE created and we have to choose by faith between the lies of the devil and the true words of God. Those that go with evolution, choose wrong. The Bible tells us in Genesis 2:1 that
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
Evolution and natural selection do not exist and never were a part of origins. What God did in 7 days made everything complete. That means what the evolutionary scientist in genetic experiments are not seeing evolution at work but God’s genetic design, under the corruptive influences of sin, interacting with the chemicals He created in the beginning. Evolution has nothing to do with it.
This means that there is no such thing as macro or micro evolution. This means that there is no such thing as natural selection. it also means that science has nothing to do with origins because God use supernatural power not imaginary natural processes.
God isn’t pulling people back a couple of hundred years, He is trying to pull people back to the truth.
If they “believe” it: it’s true!
No, they believe it BECAUSE it is true. Evolution is not true, it is a lie and comes from unbelievers. The Bible tells us not to follow the ungodly or the unbeliever thus believers need to stop following those who claim evolution is true because they are NOT of God even if they claim to be Christian (exceptions would be those who are new believers who do not know any better)
The author of the article likes to mock creationists but he is the one who has chosen ignorance not knowledge. Knowledge tells us that if God is not correct in Genesis one then He is not correct in John 3:16-17 and in Revelation.
One theory accounts for the data over a variety of different disciplines, and can be used to make accurate predictions. The other begins with a conclusion and randomly selects ‘data’ to support its already made conclusions.
This quote is full of false parameters. God doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible to use a theory to explain it all nor are we to make predictions. Both are non-biblical acts and have no place in the issue of origins or anything biblical.
True believers do not need a theory or a model to explain how everything came to be, that work was already done with the writing of the first book of the Bible.
Genesis 1 does not start with a conclusion, it starts with a revelation of what God did. He, Jesus, The Holy Spirit and other spiritual beings were the only ones present at the beginning, thus revelation, not a conclusion was needed to inform us of what took place.
We do not have to randomly select data, we go with the truth but the only people randomly selecting data are the evolutionist as they toss out or alter anything that shows they are wrong and that their theory doesn’t work. The evolutionist only tells the world the predictions that work but they forget to divulge the number of predictions that do not work whereby they create an illusion that their theory works.
No, those who side with God and the Bible are not being ignorant, are not choosing ignorance nor are promoting ignorance. Instead, they are choosing knowledge and rejecting the ignorance of evolution.
Believing and teaching creation is not ignorance, it is believing and teaching the truth and that is biblical. We are not to be ‘scientific’ in our work or beliefs but were are to be truthful and biblical.