Can they all be wrong?

Google Sir Arthur Keith(rode shotgun with Darwin) and check out his most renowned quotes.

His honesty says it all. The issue is about belief in God, Creation, and Christ.

If the God of the Bible can be discredited through debunking Creation then the credibility of all things Christian is eliminated.

The truth of God's existence is evident. The refusal to submit to His authority is the issue.

The world loves to be deceived.

Thanks for good input.

The enemy has attacked the gospel by undermining Genesis. Remember though the great New Covenant promise that he is bound so as not to deceive the nations any longer [Revelation 20], meaning that he is unable to prevent Christ from gathering His people from among the nations.


“Evolution is unproved and is unprovable. We
believe in it because Creation is unthinkable." –Sir Arthur Keith

There are many such quotes. One of my favorites which must be a paraphrase of Keith…

We know our theory is wrong, but until something better comes along we must support it because the only alternative is special creation.

I rarely read anything from Pat Bucannan that can be considered reasonable. But this article was by far the most egregious. He was wrong on so many levels it wasn't even funny. Worse, he didn't back up any of his claims with actual proof. That's something that shows it takes more faith to believe that Darwinism is faith than the actual faith itself.

First off, there is no such thing as Darwinism. It's a phrase coined by critics of Darwin himself. Darwin didn't push this. He pushed a theory he called evolution. That's it. He did not proclaim it to be anti-god or anti-spiritual. It was a scientific theory, no more no less. There was nothing faith based about it. Darwin presented the evidence and the evidence, made predictions, and through peer review over the years he was proven right.

Now why did men like Wallace get pushed out? It wasn't a conspiracy. Wallace didn't have anywhere near the evidence Darwin collected. And while Darwin was publishing his work, Wallace was still traveling. This is documented. The conspiracy is not. For more information, check out the following link:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history _14

As I've said before, there is no room for faith in science. It is evidence that matters. Evolution has evidence. That's why it has stood the test of time. That is why it survived and creationism fell apart. It's not a conspiracy. It's just how the scientific process works.

You build on a foundation of sand. A valid theory must rest on scientific law, not have to explain why it is contrary to established law. You still have no satisfactory explanation why evolution can reverse the law of increasing entropy. You still have no satisfactory explanation why evolution works in violation of the laws of probability. But more importantly, you have no explanation how the immaterial can evolve from the material. Your theory fails at the most basic levels of science, mathematics and philosophy.

More basic than that you miss the point of the article. As davpavv3 stated, this dispute is about authority. Men are in rebellion against the authoritative revelation of our Creator. You can try and hide behind neo-science all you want, but you cannot hide from God. You must live in His world and conform to His laws of physics and His laws of logic and reasoning.

You also miss the point of the article on hypocrites. Darwinists are the most blatant hypocrites to ever draw breath. As one made in the image of God, you live in God’s creation according to His established order and rather than giving thanks you deny Him and spend your lives in rebellion against His authority. You know that God exists, yet you profess there is no God so you can live as if you are not accountable to His Law.

You're dodging most of my points, Valiant. Those arguments about entropy, probability, and immaterial have been addressed in other posts. I've explained to you many times how systems theory and the process of emergance can account for all three of these issues. And I've said before that the immaterial notion holds no scientific merit because it appeals to spiritualism, and spiritualism cannot be a factor in a valid scientifc theory. The scientific process cannot have any supernatural elements in it or it is by default not scientific.

Evolution and science do nothing to oppose or mock whatever god anybody worships. It simply makes no statement on it. The only thing it contradicts are some of the stories told about certain dieties. Science has disproven other creation stories like that of Native Americans and Greeks that believed the sun was a fiery chariot or a large pile of embers. It has done the same with Genesis.

And there is nothing hypocritical about the theory of evolution. Darwinism, like I said, is a product of Darwin's critics. The notion that people are living in the creation of a certain god is still a belief and thus not addressed or condemned by science in any way. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing the other. Nobody in evolution does that. Scientists assert evolution is true and back it up with evidence. There's no hypocrisy in that. That's science, pure and simple.

Jack, what can I say? Your arguments are less than convincing and I have heard them all. Reasoning that the fossil record proves evolution because it has been interpreted based on evolution is hardly an argument.

You admit to having no explanation for the origin of life. Why do you think you have anything to say on the evolution of life? Can you not see that these things cannot be separated into independent problems? The origin of the RNA/DNA genetic system must be considered in any discussion of the mechanisms of genetic mutation. You have nothing to say of its origin, and you have nothing of substance to say regarding your mutation to man theory.

What you call evidence will condemn you on the last day, because you knew the truth but chose to believe a lie. Stop being an apologist for Darwin for a minute. Why do you reject the testimony of Christ and His apostles? Yes, Christians are sinners and hypocrites and churches are imperfect and worse, but that is no excuse. Fraud and deceit and corruption has not kept you from embracing Darwinism.

Valiant, I have addressed these issues with you before. I do not admit to having no explanation for the origin of life. I do. It's called abiogenesis and unlike the creation story, it has actual peer reviewed evidence to back it up. And as I've said before, the origin of life has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution only explains how life diversifies. It doesn't make any attempt to explain where it came from. To count it out because it can't explain something it doesn't even try to explain is not only irrational, it's devious.

And I don't call the creation story a lie. I call it what it is, a story. The problem is that it does not have any evidence to support it happened. Evolution does. I still haven't seen any verifiable proof of creationism from you or anybody for that matter. And the burden of proof is on the creationists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and saying an invisible god poofed everything into being in six days definitely qualifies as extraordinary. Now you have to prove it. Evolution is proved not by faith or conspiracy, but by evidence. That is how it has withstood so many attacks by those who don't like it, especially creationists. That's how all science is proved. The evidence is tested and re-tested until it is verified. Evolution passed this test. Creationism did not.

I don't condemn Jesus, Buddha, or any diety. I just don't believe they're literally true. The are as true as any mythological caricature, that is to say only believed on faith. And faith no matter how devout is not evidence.

This is the point of the article...

Darwinism has its own fundamentalists, and they will defend their religion no matter what. They will even affirm life from the dead by natural rather than supernatural means.

If ever any scientist were to affirm supernatural forces in any process, life or otherwise, they would immediately hurt their own credibility. Because involving any supernatural forces in any scientific discussion is hence a violation of the philosophy of science.

This is why men like Alfred Wallace didn't get the same credibility as Darwin. Wallace was a spiritualist who believed that divine forces helped make man the higher creature he is. This of course hurt his credibility a great deal. In addition, he had no evidence of this. Darwin had a lot more evidence to put forth and that's why he gets more credit than Wallace. It wasn't a matter of conspiracy, it was a matter of evidence. Darwin just had more of it.

Science by its own design cannot be fundementalist like religon. It would fall apart under the weight of its own merits. If people wanted to push debunked theories like creationism or the theories of Jean-Baptiste Lemarck who has also been disproven, their reasoning would fall apart because in the peer review process it would get debunked. Not only that, it would make it impossible to infer new conclusions. Evolution is the only theory in which all which is understood about biology makes sense. It doesn't make sense under any other theory. That's why it is accepted and other theories are not.