The Biologos Foundation has been given massive amounts of money to promote
evolution among the churches. One of their strategies are coming-out stories of
creationists who have become "Christian" evolutionists once they became
acquainted with the "evidence." Here is the latest:
• Kramer, who is 27, no longer sees things that way. Today, he accepts all
evidence for the scientific process of evolution—“the whole nine yards,” he
says. In fact, he says, evolutionary science has helped him understand his
faith better. “Science shows us a world of order and beauty, even in the midst
of darkness and disorder,” he says. “I see the light of God in this.” This view
is known as theistic evolution, the belief that God is the guiding force behind
evolution…Now, I’m able to look at this through the lens of faith and say thank
God that he has allowed us to find this discovery and this process of
evolution,” Kramer says. “I can rejoice in how beautiful, how important, how
creative the whole thing is."
How has evolution caused Kramer to understand his faith better? You will not
find any evidence of this within this 3-paged article. In fact, there is
absolutely no evidence of this claim anywhere!
Here's what you will find from evolutionists - the alleged antagonism between
faith (Christianity) and science. While there are many conflicts between the
Bible and the theory of evolution, evolutionists find it more useful to reframe
the conflict as "faith vs. science," instead of "faith vs. evolution."
It just makes us fundamentalists seem more mindless if we are opposed to
science rather evolution.
They use another diversionary technique by claiming that, if God is truly
omnipotent, He can create through evolution. However, this is not the issue.
Instead, our issue is that evolution violates the Bible, not God.
But the theory of evolution also violates their assertion that God is guiding
the process. After all, even God cannot guide an "unguided" and
"random" process.
What proofs have led Kramer to embrace evolution? The article only cites
one--that sub-optimal (less than perfect) body parts point to natural causation
rather than to God's perfect designs, and they should be perfect, shouldn't
they:
• [Sub-optimal] "Structures like this provided ‘proof of evolution—paths
that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained
by history, follows perforce’,” [Stephen Jay] Gould wrote."http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/12/how_an_evangelical_creationist_came_to_accept_evolution.3.html
They claim that the human eye is sub-optimal. Supposedly, we have a blind spot.
Hmmm? It seems like I can do pretty well despite this alleged "blind
spot." Amazingly well!
Sadly, Kramer, now an employee of Biologos, believes that his eyes are better
explained by a guided non-guided process than by God. However, Scripture claims
that Kramer has no excuse in coming to such a conclusion:
• The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness
and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since
what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to
them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal
power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has
been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)
Besides, even if we do have sub-optimal structures, these might not be the
result of less-than-optimal work of evolution. Instead, these might have
resulted from the Fall and genetic corruption resulting eventually in death.
There is also the question of the identification of sub-optimal structures. To
do this, we would need an objective standard for what are maximally optimal
structures. However, such a standard might be beyond our reach. We are
incapable of establishing such a standard. We’d have to be able to weigh all
the possible trade-offs or costs required to achieve our models of perfection.
There also seems to be an additional logical problem. Identifying examples of
the non-optimal fail to address the evidence of ID. Just imagine that you are
part of an expedition searching for ID on Mars. For the thirty days
appropriated for this probe, no such evidence is found. However, on the last day
of the probe, you discover in a cave what clearly seems to have been a library.
However, the leader of the expedition discounts your evidence saying:
• Our negative findings of the first 30 days completely overwhelm the contrary
evidence you found on the last day.
Of course, his reasoning is highly flawed. The probe conclusively found
evidence of ID, despite the failures of the first 30 days.
Likewise, even if there is evidence of non-design, this evidence fails to
disqualify the apparent evidence for design (ID).
No comments:
Post a Comment