The theory of evolution is a description of a phenomenon, nothing more
The phenomenon is described relying on micromutational change. Macromutational change is believed to have occurred not because it has been observed but because it has been extrapolated from the micromutational evidence. Micromutation is provable, macromutation is inferred.Apart from that, macromutation is not at all well supported by the evidence.
As Gould stated -
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1.Stasis -they appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."
In short, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.Yet, it is 'believed' despite the lack of evidence.
As a result of this lack of evidence, Gould and Eldredge proposed a new theory to deal with that fact -punctuated equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium achieves its purpose by making the process of change inherently invisible.
the theory of evolution states that that the many species that we know derived from a single ancestral population several billion years ago through this process of differential reproduction due to inherited physical characteristics.
but the evidence fails for the most part to support this contention.
There is nothing in this description that labels some actions as "good" or other actions as "bad", nor does it imply any sort of ideology or philosophy.
That's true but nonetheless the theory allows people to imagine that there is no God in which case who makes the rules? We do and let's face it, we're not good at that as evidenced by the state of this world and its rapidly declining morality.Since the theory is not well supported by the evidence -it is a philosophy.
This is much like Newton's theory of gravity is simply a description of a phenomenon.
Except the theory of gravity is not a philosophy since it is fully supported by the facts. We cannot call it a philosophy by any stretch of the imagination so it belongs in a completely different category.
In present day North America, white supremists are Christians. They found justification for their racism with their interpretation of the Bible.
I agree and that is why so many cults spring up all over -they interpret according to what they want to believe, not what the Bible actually says.For example, theistic evolutionists happily interpret 'day' to mean millions of years and fit it into their philosophy. God gave us brains and languages, not to confuse us but so we can be personally responsible for the choices we make. Days has to mean days -otherwise nobody can be held responsible for not choosing the correct philosophy.Even Hebrew scholars, though they might not believe the Bible personally, have stated that the clear implication of the Bible is that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days
Nor can we "blame it on evolution" when we do wrong.
But teaching that philosophy as fact without presenting the evidence for creation/ID as an alternative philosophy, leaves people with no choice -they think its fact and that science has proven it and their lives are affected by it.Philosophy affects people.
Most religious societies are simply the result of a consensus of what's right and wrong.
Agreed -taking what they want and leaving out what does not suit them.
God doesn't change however and his law is perfect....
Which is an opinion that seems to be confined to those followers of God, and hence isn't an unbiased opinion.
No less than evolution is an unbiased opinion since it is based on a philosophy.
Okay. So I know that abortion is right; preventing a woman from terminating her pregnancy is wrong. I know this. Is this because God wrote this in my conscience?
No, I really don't think so -society justifies it by opinion -if you think of an unborn baby as a separate life and really give it some thought, I do not think that an unseared conscience can come to that conclusion. I know however that many people believe it. I believed that consensus opinion before I realized that evolution is a philosophy and God is a very real possibility. Now I feel differently. My conscience tells me that I justified that belief by listening to people' opinions on the matter.
evidence that is so overwhelming that one can only refuse to accept it by perversely sticking to one's religious beliefs
Unless the evidence is actually underwhelming at best and the religion that one sticks to is evolution blinding one to other possibilities that actually, in my unbiased opinion make more sense.
The data simply show that the events recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis (as well as the chapters describing a global flood) did not happen
Unless one looks at the fossil lack of evidence for evolution and is not blinded by the uniformatarian assumptions of geology and looks at so many other things like the human brain and the eye and all the things that make gradualism look suspect at best.
If God did indeed write Genesis, then, yes, I'm afraid that what God wrote is not true.
Though we cannot prove Genesis neither can we prove the big bang, abiogenesis and so many other so called 'facts' of evolution -its an alternative philosophy and a closer look at the Bible shows many provable facts of history supported by historical accounts as well as by archeological finds. Not to mention the alignment of nations that currently want to annihilate Israel exactly as foretold in many chapters of the Bible where the end times are mentioned.
All the nations prophesied as attempting to wipe Israel out are Muslim nations and these things were written centuries before Mohammed started the Muslim religion.An alliance primarily of Russia and Iran with many other Muslim nations taking part with one main intention is happening right before our eyes.They will try to annihilate Israel -of that I have no doubt.Who could have known these things but One who is outside of time and can see the beginning as well as the end?
and it's possible that this sort of emotional avoidance of issues that you find unpleasant might be harmful
Is there any possibility that the emotional avoidance may be just what evolution is all about. It did replace creation and people theorized about an old earth long before radiometric dating with all its inherent assumptions conveniently came to the fore and apparently proved what had already been decided by men that clearly hated the Bible. I'm not speaking of Darwin -in that sense he wasn't such a good Darwinist himself, he had some serious reservations about his own theory while others ran with it and built on it.
As a last thought on the matter, everyone on this site calls for evidence for ID and seem very opposed to evidence against evolution being held as evidence for creation but it is precisely the evidence against evolution that most strongly points toward creation and it is that evidence that leaves evolution open to serious question.
-
-
™ Version 4.2
