I had a wonderful string of posts on the Facebook page of an old mate from High School and want to share the link to it, and then attempted to post it here but made several people angry. To comply with facebook’s policy I have cleansed the conversation of specific people’s identities.
Mike Pence Descends Into Gibberish After Evolution Questions From Chris Matthews (VIDEO)
Source: www.huffingtonpost.com
The conversation started off with a rather simple question. “Do you believe in evolution, sir?”
Nick Yonko:
Given the extremely weak scientific stance that evolution holds, it is interesting that a reporter, shooting from the hip; and a fence sitting republican, taken off guard could be any sort of an argument for or against anything.
My first comment is ‘irreducible complexity, and the function of the human eye’. Evolution does not stand in light of scientific fact and logical deduction.
Response:
- What is the basis for the argument that evolution has a weak scientific stance? Please provide plausible references.
I will gather the resources I have studied and post them. However, understand the core of my comment – the video above does not refute or support evolution. I think that the only people that I have heard of that are dyed in the wool evolutionists are those that reject scripture as absolute falsehood. So, given these two diametrically opposed religious views (one atheistic and one monotheistic) is there purpose in the discussion? If you summarily reject the most studied, documented, and well supported historical and spiritual document in the history of the world, you will be hard pressed to hear an opposing view point. I think our discussion would be better suited to pursuing the validity of scripture as opposed to the validity of evolution.
Response:
- Nick, I agree that the video does not do much for the argument about evolution. The point was that the representative could not or would not establish whether he believed in the scripture or in science- he wanted to have it both ways, to retain some scientific credibility while not offending his Christian contingency. With evidence mounting of the reality of climate change, we need to use provable science to be able to address the issue both in the short term and the long term. We don’t need representatives who cannot confirm whether they support or reject scientific advice.
Response:
- Does that mean science holds no value? How do you propose to certify the validity of Scripture – and why is better suited to study or understand over Evolution? The video was not meant to “refute or support evolution”, but to determine where Mike Pence stood on the matter. Pence clearly waffled in his answers so as not to disappoint his base. The GOP clearly does not believe in human progress. By the way, Atheism is not a religion. (Can it be a religious view if one does not believe in religion?) The theory of evolution is sound. Those that believe otherwise will not be swayed. Just because science has yet to determine that first thing we all evolved from does not mean it did not happen. Likewise Creationism cannot be scientifically proven. And just because the Bible has been studied by legions of people does not make it scientific fact. One can be spiritual without being religious. The entire Bible was written before man knew the true nature of much of the Earth and Universe. It was believed for quite a long time that it was true the sun revolved around the earth. Just because it was believed to be true did not make it true (Galileo).The earth was also believed to be flat. If you had presented a wheel barrow to those that wrote the Old Testament it would have been considered a technological breakthrough. To that end, the argument should be about “knowledge”. Just because you believe in creationism does not negate the truth. If the Aztecs conquered Europe, we wouldn’t be praying to Jesus. Read the book of “Leviticus” (Old Testament). “We can sell our daughters into slavery, beat our wives, but we can’t eat shrimp” cocktail.
Response
- Atheism and absolute faith are certainly diametrically opposed, and those on the either end of this spectrum will find little agreement, and are usually not open to changing their views. However, there are billions in the world who fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, and therefore plenty of valuable and mind-changing discussion can take place. I would never reject the scripture as absolute falsehood, simply because it exists- meaning that at some point, it was written by the hand of man. Therefore, it represents a period of time, a point of view, a set of beliefs. I think most scientists would agree with that simple truth. The fact that the scripture is the most studied and documented book in the history of the world is also true, however, being studied and documented by generations of faithful does not alone prove the scripture’s truth or validity. It takes faith to bridge that gap between legend and truth.
Nick Yonko:
I will be providing answers to all of what has been written here; there is a lot. I will go comment by comment, starting with first comment:
Here is a short list of several scientists from varying disciplines that support creation theory:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
That web site is also full of a large library of scientific documents and studies refuting macro-evolution. That is the center of what we are discussing, correct?
More to come…
Nick Yonko
One of the most popular theories that oppose the macro-evolutionary theory is the theory of intelligent design. A highly scientific theory that is supported by many proponents.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/… Read More
http://www.discovery.org/a/2177
http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/28/idt/
Notice that some of these references are Christian, some are not.
Now is the point where the debate becomes spiritual – you assert that the theory of evolution is based purely on science, however, the very proponents of the theory would deny that – no one, in any area of scientific endeavor has decisively proven the existence of macro-evolution – there are no missing links, the fossil evidence is seemingly sparse in it representation of species that should exist, and the very processes that are purported to have created the first cells are impossible to duplicate and could not have occurred in the environments evolutionists claim existed on the earth at its beginnings.
“Darwin’s Black Box”, Michael J. Behe, 1996 pgs. 140 – 161
Again, these are refuting evidences against evolution – my point was really that evolution is not in fact, based purely on science. If you research the statements of some of the leading proponents of evolution, you will see what I mean:
Professor D.M.S. Watson, in “Adaptation”, 1929
Boyce Rensberger, “How the World Works”, 1986
Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons”, 1997
Richard Dickerson, “Molecular Evolution”, 1992
In fact, Darwin himself questioned his own theory in his own book – “Origins of Species”. You should read it some time.
Nick Yonko:
Thanks for you input ! My intention behind discussing scripture was two fold – first to get to the source of the issue, which I still think has very little to do with scientific fact, and second to bring clarity to what scripture actually says about creation and science in general. Science is extremely valid – but its origins, at least the origins of the scientific process we hold to today, was from dyed in the wool creationsists:
Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin… Read More
Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler
And, by the way, Atheism is a religion – your faith is based in the unproven belief that God does not exist – and generally the evidence for God’s existence, whether Christian or not, is overwhelmingly against Atheists.
Yes, I agree with the fact that the Bible does not convey scientific fact just because so many have studied it. However, after so many have studied it, they have found it consistent with science in all regards.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
Also, the wheel barrow was around at least in 400 B.C. if not earlier – the people of the Old Testament were not technological morons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelbarrow
Perhaps we would have been praying to Jesus if the Aztecs conquered Europe – don’t know how this is germane to the conversation.
Leviticus – yes, I agree if we lived by the book of Leviticus we would be doing things that are illogical, and ridiculous. The Hebrew Nation did those things once upon a time. The reason Christians don’t do those things now is because of Jesus. Understand, without Christians there would have been no civil war, no William Wilberforce and no Women’s Suffrage.
Let me clarify what I meant by my statement about scripture a step further. Not only has it been studied and documented by the faithful, but it has also been studied and documented by those without faith in its writings, and several of them were converted – Lee Strobel is a contemporary example and C.S. Lewis is an older example. Also, lets look at some of the facts about scripture:
- The Bible is not a single book, but it is a collected volume of 66 separate writings.
- The books in the Bible were written over a 1500 year time span by over 40 authors all from extremely diverse cultures, countries, and backgrounds.
- Taken as a whole, the Bible is a unified whole, telling the story of Jesus Christ from creation to the end of the world.
- The Bible is amazingly historically accurate and has been used by archaeologist to discover new sites and clarify old discoveries.
http://www.bib-arch.org/
- As far as being documented is concerned, what I meant was the existence of historical manuscripts – there is more evidence, for instance, for the existence of Jesus in the historical record than there is for the existance of Julius Caesar, Plato and Aristotle combined.
Leave a Reply