Nice little quote from an old Quandrant magazine (March 2003): Darwinisim by Jenny Teichman:
Modern physicists do not claim to spend their lives studing Newtonism and it is worth asking why there is this difference between biologists and physicists. The probable answer is that the admiration of Darwin has more to do with atheism than with science, for he is wrongly thought to have refuted religion. Some biologists of the twenty-first century resembe the denizens of America's Bible Belt; they think the evolutionary hpothesis logically incompatible with creationsim. That is a mistake: the idea of evolution is quite compatible with creationism as such, thought not, of course, with the literal truth of the first chapter of Genesis.
Now, lots of layers for discussion there; I note, though, that a woman as bright as Teichman is clearly impressed by the 'literal truth' of the first chapter of Genesis being a result of the text, and alternative meanings having to be added to the text (from where, one must ask...Peter?).
Her article then goes on to draw readers' attention to the weaknesses in Darwinism exposed in Darwin's own work, in Malthus, in David Stove's "Darwinian Fairytales" and Mary Midgley's "Evolution as a Religion".
The brightest light in the article is her overturning the notion of 'struggle' when species in fact largely cooperate: people certainly do. The notion of struggle is the reverse of the Victorian obsession with 'progress' and "improvement" and so says more about Darwinian evolution's cultural roots than anything he observed.
Quaint it is then that SADism can defer to the rhetoric of modern evolution and leave the prophetic purpose of biblical revelation to one side as they fail to take the critical debate to those souls in prison!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Here is a very amusing account, by a non-creationist, of the absurd just-so stories of evolutionists: Circling the Paradigm: Protecting the Theory at Any Cost, 21 April 2008. It closes with:
"The entire Darwinian structure rests on the willingness to accept wild theories without examination. Permit me one other example to make the point. James Flynn, in his book Race Differences in Intelligence, makes two fabulistic assertions. First, Asians, who supposedly are adapted to cold weather, have little facial hair because it would collect ice and cause frostbite. Second, northern peoples have pale skin so that sunlight can synthesize vitamin D.
"As to the first assertion, I note that Asian peoples with little facial hair also have little pubic hair. If this is an adaptation to prevent an accumulation of ice, life must have been far harder than I had imagined. The idea that a covering of facial hair is a disadvantage in cold weather is counterintuitive, so I asked a friend who spent a dozen years with the Alaskan fishing fleet. Everyone wore heavy beards, he said, as protection against the cold.
"However, if beards are bad in cold weather, why did Vikings have them? They certainly had the intelligence to notice that their faces were freezing, and they knew how to shave. On Flynn’s theory, Viking women and children would have survived nicely, but the men would have died of frostbite. Who has been smoking what?"
Ktisophilos, proponents of the paradigm of evolution have certainly turned it into a slippery object which cannot be tied down on any contradictory observation.
Walter ReMine in his book 'The Biotic Message' capably exposed the lame excuses offered for contradictions to the paradigm. His work is a bit dated now but it still has a lot of value because the strategies adopted today are similar. That proponents have broken up into different camps helps them keep the masquerade in place.
Neil Moore
Jenny Teichman says 'That is a mistake: the idea of evolution is quite compatible with creationism as such, thought not, of course, with the literal truth of the first chapter of Genesis.'
Is she serious? As long as you scrap God's version of origins you can drag out the theological sledge-hammers and pound evolution into the space! What a laugh!
None the less, no matter what manipulation is entered into, God's version of creation is not even in the same order as the evolutionary idea.
Of course Jesus and the apostles also get in the way of this sledge- hammer theology. Jesus obviously believed man was created at the beginning of this creation in which we live, not after evolutionary ages as she would have us believe. I suppose He ought to know, being there at the beginning.
Why do these people so readily accept evolution, and refuse to budge when its lack of proof is demonstrated?
I remember once being at Ashfield Presbyterian church listening to Dr Wieland from Creation Ministries. Afterwards he was approached by an Anglican who said he was a scientist and couldn't swallow what Carl had said. I sat close and listened to the lengthy exchange and heard every evolution-based objection he raised handled. Nonetheless he went away unconvinced. His faith in evolution was so strong he was unaware he had been knocked out in round 3. As they say he had nothing but held onto his man made religion with ardour.
Sad really.
BTW Warwick, A friend has alerted me to the fact that Mike Pagett is posting on at least one other blogspot.
I regret to inform you that my suspicion that the man had lied is being demonstrated to be true.
I am sorry. He said he would be back to dialogue here in February, 2008, he has chosen to post elsewhere and not return here as stated. To me, the man will be hereafter tainted as being a liar. Those who know him, who read this comment and who don't tell him he is being held to account here are complicit in his ongoing sin.
Sad but true!
Neil Moore
Sad about Mike Pagett's dishonesty. From my experience compromise leads to deceit. If a person compromises their wedding vows and dips into the pond of adultery then deceit is the bedfellow. No pun intended.
The same with unfaithfulness to Scripture. On the US site I have mentioned I have many times seen a compromiser enter the fray with confidence and passion only to go quiet or disappear when their obvious compromise was exposed.
It also explains all the huffing, puffing, and unrighteous indignation penned on these pages by various very forgetable AngloNasties who have attempted to berate some here.
Warwick, the Anglonasties you speak of have a pack which hunt together. They were on here for a while but ran away with their tail between their legs. The same friend mentioned in my previous comment also tipped me off about an Andrew Tilsey (I think?) who commented on the Anglo Forum about the State of Israel.
Anyway, I usually ignore the Anglo Forum but when tipped off I checked it out. Not long after Andrew Tilsey's comments in support of Israel of today the pack of voracious wolves encircled him and gave him a mauling. Aside from that they are Jew haters.
You just have to stand back objectively and you have to wonder are these guys Christians? Where is the Lord Jesus Christ represented in the things they say and do? They seem to spend all their time trolling around looking for a forum to air their ignorance. I speak, of course, of Gordon Cheng, Craig Swarze (is that the correct spelling?), Owen Atkins, Luke Stephens, Dave Lankshear.
Why aren't they out in the world seeking to save the lost if they are Christians?
I was astounded to have pointed out to me that Gordon Cheng, on his blogspot, recently relayed a conversation he had with a cab driver during which he told the cab driver he (the cab driver) was going to hell. The cab driver just laughed it off. Poor evangelistic result for a poor effort. Yet, I'll be blowed, onto Gordon Cheng's blogspot come these Anglo's upbraiding Gordon Cheng and asking for help with their miserable witnessing efforts.
These people demonstrate they have nothing to offer in help to a lost world.
Neil Moore
Neil, a friend sent me the link regarding Andrew Tilsley's pro-Israel comments. Honestly I was surprized at the anti-semitic comments of some who had a go at him. I can't imagine how any Christian can be anti-Semitic, as some of the antagonists obviously are. But then again, silly me, I can't imagine how any Christian can reintrpret Genesis through the filter of evolution, a secular belief.
The Icheng said 'thou shall not steal' to which I would reply that this world was created by God, therefore owned by God and therefore He sets the rules. This same God says Israel is for His chosen people. And God knows they need a homeland, the one he originally gave them. Not that I imagine many Islamists would take much notice of this sad Anglonasty pack. but why give any support to the Muslims who want Israel destroyed and Israeli's wiped out?
I think the Icheng should keep his mouth shut.
I slouched over to Cheng's blog on taxi talk. How pathetic were the adulatory questions:: tell me Gordon, how do I start a conversation that leads to Christ?
Here's how. Ask a cab driver: "do you think we are descended from monkeys?" That'll get the ball rolling and you can get to Christ PDQ from there. Any nature program, any comment about evil or injustice, any comment about power, or politics, any comment about any struggle whatsoever, and you can get to Christ.
Sorry Gordon, Christ gave the way out, he didn't rub people's noses in hell. . . except, of course, for the religious worthys (irony runs deep here!).
Post a Comment