All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. - Richard Dawkins, The Blind WatchmakerLots of happy, theistic Evolutionists trot along with the Theory of Evolution, embracing it as if it is perfectly compatible with Scripture, but the theory by definition is designed to circumvent and eliminate God. At its core is the belief that no supernatural being ever intervened in the process.
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. - Will Provine
What I cannot fathom is the connection of "Evolution" and "Sunday". I understand Resurrection Sunday (or "Easter" if you wish). That's a fully biblical, absolutely essential Sunday. I understand many of the other Sunday observances as well. They fit nicely in a biblical framework to be observed by believers. I actually question the "Abortion Sunday" concept, but I suppose since humans are in the image of God and we are to protect life, that might be acceptable. But in what sense is there any room for these two terms to be put together -- "A theory designed and defined to eliminate God" and "The Lord's Day"?
It's a bit ironic if you ask me. These liberal churches are standing over on their "more rational" side, beckoning to us "less rational" folk. "Come to the side of reason. Embrace science with us as we embrace religion with you." All the while the science they are embracing is denying at its core the religion they are embracing. And that, in their minds, is "more rational".
4 comments:
Hysterically funny but true and sad at the same time. Conisder a watch. Was the watchmaker able to see or was He blind? Blind=rational. Funny, sad.
We need to be careful about dismissing science because there is a perception that the two are mutually exclusive. The fact is that many of the most famous scientists were Christians. Consider Blaise Pascal and his Pensees, which are an apologetics text.
Aside from that, remember that we are discussing God, who created order out of chaos. Thus any theory which argues for logical examination should not be rejected out of hand. I think on a macroscale evolutionary theory provides some good talking points; but on a microscale it fails abjectly and completely. Read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" for a great discussion of this. We should not be afraid of science and its conclusions...rather we should be certain that whatever science promulgates through its process, it cannot come up with anything that fundamentally disproves the Bible. The Bible, God's revelation to us, has stood the test of science again and again. Evolutionary theory is only dangerous in that it is frequently misapplied, misunderstood, and generally NOT understood in the common populace. THAT is where the trouble lies.
Wow! You're the PhD, and I think you confused the terms you were looking for. I think the macroscale is the big one and the microscale is the little one and I think Behe (and you) would argue for the micro without the macro.
But all that aside, I absolutely agree that Christianity shouldn't be afraid of science. I absolutely agree that Christians need to be able to give reasons. I absolutely agree that science cannot disprove the Bible. My primary question here was "What does Evolution (in its pure, secular, anti-theism form) have to do with 'Sunday'?"
What I meant by macroscale was, logical groupings of animals based on common functionality. Evolutionary theory did a good job of postulating why those groupings are solid, but failed abjectly in explaining why they existed in the first place.
Any macroscale evolution must have been preceeded by microscale evolution, i.e. evolution inside cells. But as Behe so cogently argues, there is absolutely no support for this whatsoever at the microscale (cellular) level. Scientists who understand the complexity of the genetic code, and the fundamental interrelations therein, cannot hold that evolutionary theory has any credence. It's just not possible. And unfortunately that is where lots of people fail to understand the implications of evolutionary theory. It's all well and good to say, "Well chimps are 98% similar to humans, so it makes sense that we came from them." But when you really understand the genetics behind that, it becomes laughable.
I hope that clarifies a bit.
Post a Comment