Another interesting quote from a management book (well, interests me . . .).
Now, why I'm doing this is to show examples of how thinkers outside our particular debate appreciate, understand, refer to and use the idea of 'evolution'. I also note that their implication of evolution never (so far in my reading) leads to the awe of God.
From Ansoff again (op cit p. 127), talking about adaptation in organisational development:
"The concept of adaptation used here is much richer than the one used in association with the theory of evolution. In that theory, adaptation refers to only involuntary responses to external changes, and the responses consist of internal changes. This restricted connotation of the concept derives from the fact that the theory of evoution is preoccupied with nonpurposeful systems, and when it deals with purposeful systems it is not concerned with their purposfulness . . ."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Eric, interesting quote indeed.
When dealing with people convinced of the veracity of Evolution I generally find them confused about natural selection. The evolutionary indoctrinators have been very successful in muddying the waters. The faithful are convinced that natural selection is part of microbe to man evolution: micro-evolution, leading to macro-evolution.
When it is pointed out that natural selection (micro-evolution)is in fact the opposite of Macro, upwards evolution (because the former entails a loss of genetic information) they find that hard to follow. I (and others) carefully point out that for the original evolutionary life-form to have evolved over time into a human, massive amounts of new, totally unique, genetic information need to have appeared without intelligent intervention.
It has been speculated that the original life-form may have been something like a bacteria and if so it is proposed that its genetic codes could have been represented in two novel sized books. By the same reasoning it would take 1000 books to store the human genetic codes. So where did the 998 books of totally new, unique, information come from?
I have never received a clear answer. But they still maintain faith in evolution. Blind faith.
It is a thrill though to meet people who were once blinded to Scripture by the evolutionary smoke-screen, who were assisted to see through it & became Christian believers.
It is just as thrilling to meet people who once believed the theistic evolution nonsense, who have been liberated from the unworkable, anti-Scriptural compromise. If only we could see this beginning with our brothers in the Anglican community!
To be astray from His truth is bad enough but to see these leaders leading others astray is truly sad.
It amazes me that Christians convinced of the supernatural power of God shown in virgin birth, resurrection & forgiveness of all sin, and much more, feel the need to resort to a Godless, unproven, pointless naturalistic mechanism of creation. Is there anything in Scripture which lends support to this? Is there anything in Scripture which even hints that our Creator God isn't powerful enough to do whatever He pleases? Is there anything in Scripture which hints that God is unable to do just eactly what He says He has done, is doing, and will do? Nothing to each of these. 'Behold, I am the Lord,is anything too difficult for me?' Jeremiah 32:27. If some Anglican leaders & hangers on are to be believed the answer is yes! Yes the Lord isn't powerful enough to create by His spoken word & not truthful enough to write the truth.
Surely this is heresy (as defined by the Oxford Dictionary) however heretics have changed camp before, returning to orthodox belief, so we can only hope & pray these heretics do also.
Yes, Warwick. Surely if they can believe Genesis 1:1 as written, there should be no problem believing Gen. 1:2-11:32 either. But in Moore College's Bible, the verse following Gen. 1:1 seems to be Gen. 12:1.
Yet on a day like today, it's good that CMI reminds us that at Christmas, we celebrate that the Creator Himself took on the nature of one of His creatures, as the Last Adam. This of course makes no sense without the first man, Adam (1 Cor. 15:46).
Ktiso, I have sought to understand the reasoning of the compromisers but can only conclusde they aren't expounding Scripture, not drawing their understanding from there but adding meanings which are simply not contained therein.
As one example consider the meaning of the word day:
Let’s go to Exodus 31:12-17 where God is talking to Moses about the definite article, The Sabbath, The 7th day. God twice tells Moses that those who work on this day are to be put to death. God says…’for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.’
It’s obvious that whatever the word ‘day’ means God created in six of them and then rested on the seventh, here commanding his creatures work for six of them and rest the seventh.
Were these days 24 hours as a straight forward reading of Genesis Ch. 1 would appear to say? Or are they a thousand years each, or vast time periods, representative of the periods of time the god of theistic evolution took to slowly mould his creation?
I believe Exodus Ch.19 gives us the clue. The people were commanded by God to prepare themselves for the ‘third day’ by washing and abstaining from sexual relations.
Verse 16 ‘On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning….’ Very much in the vein of ‘And there was evening and there was morning- the third day’- Genesis 1:13.
However let’s consider Exodus Ch. 19 in light of three different views of the meaning of ‘day’, as in the first day, the second day etc.
1)What if the word day in Genesis Ch.1 refers to a day millions or billions of years long as in the theistic evolutionary view? It makes no sense as had the days of Exodus 19 each been vast periods of time then the Israelite race would have been no more, they being forbidden to have sexual relations.
2)What if the word day meant a thousand years as some say? Once again there would be no human there to meet with God.
3)What if day is taken at its face value, as being of 24 hours,a day as we live them today? The very way we use ‘day’ when we talk of ‘the first day of my holidays’, for example. This is the only option which fits with Scripture and makes sense.
I’m convinced the compromisers have a problem with ‘day’( and other Scriptures) only because they add to Scripture, approaching it with an extra-Biblical mind-set.
I remember some years ago at Ashfield Presbyterian Church where an Anglican scientist was disagreeing with Dr Wieland from CMI, over the meaning of ‘day’ and other issues. Every scientific or theological point the scientist raised was answered by Dr Wieland and the scientist had no counter argument. However the scientist would not concede one point. He had a rock-hard extra-Biblical view and would not be shifted form it. No matter what Scripture or science said.
I remember speaking at a church in Sydney’s southern suburbs where I was taken to task afterwards for things I had said, by a university lecturer, and his daughter. Both professing Christians. I showed them how Scripture supported what I had said however they were not interested, impatiently brushing Scripture aside, continually bringing up evolutionary speculations against God’s Word.
Bible believers listening were stunned at the non-Biblical approach taken by this pair who would not accept the Word of God preferring the changing opinions of men.
I have little hope we will convince the compromisers but my prayer is that others following this debate will investigate what Scripture says and equally investigate the poor science which supports the theistic evolution view.
You are making a right observation Warwick. How can the interpretation of the word 'day' in the Exodus passages be chopped about so much as compromisers would have?
They don't want to offend worldly thought but prefer to offend God.
Neil Moore
Post a Comment