I choose: "Evolution versus Creationism, et all is a 'Red Herring' argument due to misunderstanding on both sides"
I cannot thank you enough for your informed and cogent help. PaulGL
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic title from "I choose: "Evolution versus 'Creationism, et. al.' is a 'Red Herring' argument due to" to "Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument".
Percy: I'll have to get back to you on that, but within 10 days- since my email notifications are now back on (I hope). I had to ditch my 7-year old PC and get another. Rather than transfer my bacup, the PC store put my old hard drive in the new PC also. But I just found that it won't access those files. Will be knocking on their door Tuesday.
Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields has consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.
The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution- Uniformitarianism is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more antiGenesis than they were proscientific.
The second mistake, resulting from the same antispiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.
The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account. Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
At this site debaters are asked to marshall their arguments using their own words and use links and citations only as support. Excerpts should be brief and should include attribution.
I wrote A Message for the Human Race. The 'cut and pastes' are my commentary on specific footnoted material validating the concepts elucidated. Do forum rules require that I re-phrase my own commentary, probably to a less cogent version? Also, am going to check my 'murphy's law' email notification setting, since I didn't receive notification of any forum/thread/replies. PaulGL aka achristian1985
I have no way of knowing that. I guess there are drawbacks to writing anonymously.
I'll promote the thread, but keep in mind that there are three reasons we ask people to compose original replies rather than cut-n-paste. One reason is the obviously plagiaristic one. Another is that very early on in EvC Forum's existence we found that those who cut-n-pasted their arguments usually didn't understand them. And the last, and the one that applies here, is that we find that pre-composed replies rarely if ever fit the context of a dynamic on-going discussion.
Also, even when you're quoting yourself, people have the right to know when the words were composed as a direct response to their message and when they were composed for another context.