Arphy writes:
I don't know why i should take the opinion of macDonald above the plain meaning of the biblical text.
You missed my point.
You commented on C.S. Lewis, and you were suggesting that had he seen creation science, by which I now see you mean Henry Morris and friends.
I was commenting on Lewis in return, NOT on creation science in general (at least in that comment). I was pointing out that Lewis would have had nothing to do with the type of Christianity creation science espouses, no matter what era he lived in.
If evolution is true then no, nature does not testify about God.
Well, take it that way if you want.
Hatred, fables and lies? I all ready know that you think i am wrong, so is this sort of comment really necessary.
Possibly not, but here's why I said it anyway.
The thing that restrains me is knowing Kenneth Miller's reaction to a meeting with Ken Ham. Ken Ham is not even trying to speak truth. He's just trying to defend Genesis, and he's really not very worried how ludicrous he has to be to do so. (Example, "What would a flood produce? Billions of death things all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things all over the earth?")
However, because creation science has to distort, manufacture fables, and lie, it attracts a lot of people who are desperate. They're desperate because they believe that their whole religion will collapse if they are wrong.
But they are wrong, hands down, no doubt about it. In a forum where all the evidence can be presented, arguing with a young earth creationist is like arguing with a two-year-old. They don't listen, but it's obvious to any adult observer that they don't know what they're talking about.
So, in order to defend themselves they result to telling lies about others. For example, my introduction to the lies of creation science was Dr. Bob Gentry slandering Dr. Donald Johansen, who found Lucy. I was shocked when I found out Gentry was repeating a 15-year-old false story on a TV show that supposedly was defending Jesus, who is "the Truth."
I now know that's simply standard operating procedure for "creation science."
To anyone outside the movement, that looks like hatred and lies (because it is) from a group of people that claim to represent truth and love.
So I brought it up and said it because you were saying that people don't believe in Christ because of evolution. Really, there's nothing true about that.
Eliminate hatred and lies and present a people that walks in real love and power with God, and you'll find evolution is absolutely no deterrent to faith.
I know that in general Bible literalists don't care what the Bible says unless they already agree with it, but let me hope you may be an exception: Jesus said that his testimony to the world was the love and unity of his disciples (John 13:34-35; 17:20-23). Paul talked about a demonstration of the Spirit, power, love, and faith.
There's nothing in the Bible about offering scientific evidence to the world of God.
The fact is, creation--which is evolved whether we like it or agree with it or not--still testifies to the heart the power and nature of God. Those who spend time outside of a city and in nature are still moved with a sense of awe toward the creator--even Charles Darwin, who doubted the existence of one.
™ Version 4.2