Theistic evolution: Why it doesn't work with Scripture

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 14, 2005

SBG said:
Wait...wait...wait. In another thread, you just went off about how YECs lump TEs together. Here you lump YECs together.

I think each side has this problem, not just one side.

Nonsense. I've seen dozens of examples of creationist plagiarism. Zero evolutionist.

If that was plagarism, nice catch. It might have been more charitable to ask him if this was his intent instead of just accusing him of it. He may have forgotton to include the source.

You make mistakes too, don't you?

EDIT:

I went and looked at the post you claim is plagarism. Karl, you might want to put on glasses or take them off. If you read carefully, you will find this in his post:

" From christiananswers.net, here are the 10 dangers (paraphrased) of theistic evolution:"

A little a hasty, wasn't that Karl? Did you even read his post?

Not all of it. The plagiarism starts before that reference - right at the misstatement of the definition of theistic evolution at the top. I didn't read past there because I knew the content. I'm willing to drop the claim of plagiarism on this, though, although technically the reference should make it clear where the copied material starts - it implies that the material only after the reference is copied, which is not true. I can see that as an innocent mistake.

Incidently, though, the reference is wrong. The article as it exists here seems to be (c) AiG

Athanasian Creed · May 29, 2005

gluadys said:
(snip)

Evolution is not an ideal. It is not a philosophy. It is not a religion. It is not a belief. Evolution is a scientific fact and a scientific theory. And that is all that it is. There is no more reason for a Christian to be concerned about evolution than there is to be concerned about relativity or gravity or any similar theory.

The quotes from scientists who subscribe to evolution say otherwise -

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."

Dr. Albert Fleishmann, Erlangen Zoologist

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."
J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."
W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France]

"`Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being.
" Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."
H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity omnipotent chance."
T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."
Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."
H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."
D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist]

Hmmm....here we have EVOLUTIONISTS calling the ToE "an article of faith" and "a scientific religion" who's proponents are prepared to " 'bend' their observations to fit in with it", "owing to their sectarianism" sure sounds like an ideal, a philosophy, a religion and a belief. Thank God they had the courage to state the truth about the "myth of evolution" as de Grasse succinctly put it.

The best quote by far i leave you with to ponder -

!!!!!!! "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless !!!!!"
Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France]

IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED...just as He said He did in His precious Word - a literal 6 day creation of all things in the cosmos and on earth by Jesus Christ the Creator and Sustainer of ALL things by His power and word ex nihilo !!

Ray

gluadys · May 29, 2005

Athanasian Creed said:
The quotes from scientists who subscribe to evolution say otherwise -

1. The personal opinions of scientists are not science.
2. The personal opinions of scientists speaking outside their field (e.g. physicists speaking about biology) are no more relevant than those of the average person.
3. Opinions that did correspond with truth at the time they were made may now be outdated by new evidence.
4. Quotations taken out of context may not say what it looks like they say.

When you filter your quotes through these facts, most of them are irrelevant. Here are a few more specific responses:

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."

Dr. Albert Fleishmann, Erlangen Zoologist

So what do you expect a creationist to say? And he didn't say it just yesterday either. He died in 1942. Meanwhile evidence for the theory of evolution has continued to pile up.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."
J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95

Irrelevant. Evolution is not about the origin of life. Google "abiogenesis".

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138

Also irrelevant as this quote refers to the origin, not the evolution of life. In a later issue of the Physics Bulletin he notes that:

"Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record."

- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."
W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species

Again a creationist speaking, and back in 1872. Even he might have changed his mind by now.

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

And Denton has changed his mind. Read his new book which is pro-evolution within a framework of design. If he were a theist, this would similar to theistic evolution.

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240

A classic mined quote. I was suspicious as soon as I saw the ellipse after "evolutionary sequence". Evolutionary sequence of what?

The full quote tells us:

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from which other group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred once, or twice, or many times. ... The sole basis has been on the structural resemblance's between adults or their development, but as the author shows in a most effective manner, if one were to tally the views of experts on such resemblance's, then one can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."

Again, note the date: 1961 The evidence available then was not sufficient to come to a definitive conclusion about the early evolution of invertebrates. Does this ambiguity still hold true today?

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France]

According to French authorities he never held that position, but was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Also, the first sentence of the quote has not been found in any of his published works, though the last has been found in the final paragraph of an anti-evolutionist book he wrote. Whatever the situation in 1963, he is dead wrong by today's standards. There are all sorts of practical applications of evolution in agriculture and medicine today.

"`Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being.
" Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429

An even more classic quote mine. What are the odds that the next sentence begins with "But..."? Thomas Huxley, after all, was the person who coined the term "agnostic" and was the most inveterate proponent of evolution in Darwin's lifetime.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."
H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138

Again, important information has not been included in the quote--which occurs in the same article as the other Lipson quote above. Between this quote and the one above he says:

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? "

This indicates that he is also making the common error of associating evolution with the origin of life. But the theory of evolution makes no statement about the origin of life.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity omnipotent chance."
T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102

Anyone who begins with the assumption that Darwin's main purpose was to disprove God doesn't know what they are talking about. I could find nothing about Rosazak. Was he even a scientist?

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."
Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8

I think most evolutionists would agree with this. Nothing in science should be treated as unchallenged dogma.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."
H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31

1953. Very out of date. What would he think of todays genetic algorithm programs?

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."
D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist]

So? Genesis is not scientific evidence. Nor does it need to be read as if it were, setting up an inevitable conflict between a literalized Genesis and science.

Hmmm....here we have EVOLUTIONISTS calling the ToE "an article of faith" and "a scientific religion" who's proponents

are prepared to " 'bend' their observations to fit in with it", "owing to their sectarianism" sure sounds like an ideal, a philosophy, a religion and a belief. Thank God they had the courage to state the truth about the "myth of evolution" as de Grasse succinctly put it.

Since half of the people in the list above are creationists, I wonder why you misrepresent them as evolutionists. Perhaps 'bending' your observations, or did you just not check them out? When you use lists of mined quotes you never know what is really behind them until you do. A good place to start is
the Quote Mine Project from which I got some of the information noted above.

IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED...just as He said He did in His precious Word - a literal 6 day creation of all things in the cosmos and on earth by Jesus Christ the Creator and Sustainer of ALL things by His power and word ex nihilo !!

Ray

Believe what you want to believe. Just don't claim it has scientifici support. If you want to believe that the world described by science is a fairy tale, you might ask why God provided evidence for the fairy tale and none for the creation accounts in scripture.

Theistic evolution: Why it doesn't work with Scripture

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran

More options

Athanasian Creed

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus !!!

More options

gluadys

Legend

More options

Similar threads

Theistic evolution: Why it doesn't work with Scripture

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran

Athanasian Creed

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus !!!

gluadys

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency