If evolution is not the answer, then what is?

quote:

---

If it is true that Christians "attack" the theory of evolution, it is equally true that Christianity itself is under attack from all quarters by naturalists.

---

How is that? The only portion of Christianity that I see as coming under "attack" from naturalists is the idea that Genesis can be scientifically proven, which comes from places like AIG, ICR, Dr. Dino, and the Discovery Institute, among others. And even for those of us who "attack" those institutions, we are not attacking Christianity itself--but rather, the misrepresentation of science in order to support Genesis (or ID) presented by said places.

quote:

---

However, because the Christian's "attack" is based in the belief of a single cause for the universe - God - the Christian will never have any other answer.

---

Precisely--and that's not a scientific answer. So why do these places decry the science behind it, when they have no alternative scientific explantion? (Or at least, not one that I've seen, and obviously not one that Rockhound has seen).

quote:

---

In contrast, the naturalist is free to pick and choose as many theories as pallatable because fossil evidence will always reveal some new species or refute the newest nuance of evolution. It is no surprise, therefore, that the naturalist's "base" is a constant, shifting sand because naturalist theories are all based upon what they see at a single point in time and never the entire fossil record as a whole - which seems to constantly refute their theories as the Bible predicts it will.

---

Thank you for proving my point about the tactics of those who espouse Creationism. You are incorrect--the "naturalist's" base is always constant, not shifting: evolution is the cause of the diversity that exists on the planet today. That does not shift. What is more open to examination are the most important mechanisms which led to the existence of a particular species, or the existence of particular transition species throughout time. And keep in mind that what may be most important for one species may not hold for another--that's why sweeping generalizations are often not used, and hypotheses contain qualifiers. We admittedly don't know everything--if we did, scientists would be out of a job.

quote:

---

Should one seek an alternative to creation, it is this - "In the beginning God." Should another alternative be required, well, then, "In the beginning God." So on en finitum. There is no alternative to the bedrock truth that God is the cause and effect of His creation. I'm sorry but I can not make anyone else believe this because belief can only come from God.

---

That's all fine and dandy--but then, why do places like ICR try to prove "In the beginning God?" It's unprovable, as it is by definition, a matter of faith. There would not be such a schism in the "religion" and "naturalist" camps if these places realized that, even if one was to somehow "prove" evolution incorrect, the default would not be Creation, but rather, some other scientific theory.[This message has been edited by bulldog98, 05-27-2003]

Just wanted to say a quick word about sites such as these.Do I give them any credibility? Absolutely not. It's been explained why quite well by other posters, but I thought I'd throw in a few more examples that personally outraged me:First, regarding quotes they use from evolutionists, and take out of context (quite a common tactic). "Dr." Henry Morris was caught quite obviously misrepresenting the position of one scientist. However, he has the nerve to justify this as follows:

quote:

---

The error, however, was not one of deception but of presumption. I did not actually have the 1997 edition of Carroll’s book at hand, but simply used the quote as I had received it from a constituent. I did try to check it, but the book was not yet in our ICR Library, and I finally just assumed it was o.k. and used it in my article. Carroll had made a number of similar comments about fossil gaps in an earlier book, so this seemed consistent. This assumption was wrong, however. This mistake on my part was probably no more justifiable than deliberate misrepresentation, so I must simply apologize.

---

This shows that Morris is either 1) a complete moron, or 2) a deliberate liar (and these two are not mutually exclusive). He has a Ph.D.--he should know to check sources, particularly one emailed to him from Joe Schmoe. And the book not being present in the ICR library is no excuse. Give me a break.Second, because of articles like this one, courtesy of AIG:The Blood-Stained Century of Evolution
(can be found at Christianity - Beliefs and History of Faith in God and Jesus Christ)Essentially, this article "shows" how evolution was directly responsible for the Holocaust and other mass slaughters--while conveniently leaving out that Luther practically outlined the "final solution," or that German soldiers wore the phrase "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles--or that Hilter wrote in Mein Kampf:

quote:

---

Hence, today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

---

AIG--credibility, zero.I won't even start with Kent Hovind--suffice it to say, even AIG and ICR have discredited him.