An Intelligent Discussion

In this post, l'd like to finish up with a few more questions- having to do with science. Let's look at the few issues which are relevant today in the way science is taught in education, thought about in society, and why the debate on evolution and creation science. Doesn't science disprove the Bible and Christianity? Is evolution fact, or is it still a theory and haven't they proven that life evolved or came about by chance? Could it be possible that evolution and creation are both true? Are Christians giving credit to a God for things we just don't understand? Are there any arguments for creation? Isn't Christianity just against science? And, why , if it's not true, is evolution still taught in school?First off, doesn't science disprove the Bible and Christianity? This is one of those all encompassing questions, in which the answer lies in the other questions and answers we'll look at. For years, people have thought, or been taught that science and Christianity are incompatible and one cancels out the other. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Scientific discoveries that are being found more often than ever before may seem sometimes to disprove the Bible, but at deeper looks into things such as DNA actually build a case for a creator, and lend more credence to what is in the Bible. Is evolution a fact, or is it still a theory which hasn't proven that life evolved or came about b chance? Since evidence for evolution is about which type of evolution scientists are defining the word, we need to know which term means what. The term macro evolution is used for a process which supposedly creates new and complex organs or body parts. Micro evolution is the term used when an animal adapts to certain changes. For instance, finches in the Galapagos Islands have shown to change their body and beak shapes over several generations depending on whether shorter or longer beaks are better for gathering food. Same thing with other animals and birds which have changed to adapt with human population growth or having to move to another climate due to environmental reasons. An arctic hare can change the color of it's coat depending on winter or summer seasons to blend in with it's surroundings. These are examples of micro evolution.Macro evolution, on the other hand, is what is usually claimed by Darwinists, believing that macro evolution is actually micro evolution continued over a very long time through natural selection. This claim is controversial though, because so many experiments have shown that small changes do not accumulate to make large changes such as new body parts and organs. Scientists notice that only modifications of existing living things- not whole new ones occur. Macro evolution also assumes that change in the living world os unlimited, but the only changes they observe are limited. I do a lot of gardening- both vegetable and flowers. I know that we can breed new roses, better roses that can ward off infection and be pest resistant, or they can be bred to make new colors. There have been hundreds of new roses created- but they are still roses. It's the same with breeding animals. You can breed for stronger horses, keep dog breeds pure or mixed, but they are still horses or dogs. Evolutionists take these small changes and speculate on what might happen a million years from now of what kind of plant or animal it may be by then. Anyone who knows about breeding dogs knows that variation may start off at a rapid pace, but over a few generations, the variation reaches a ceiling that breeders can't break through. If they try, the dog will become weak and prone to disease and physical deformities. It's the same with breeding anything. Darwin believed that nature could select among organisms the way a breeder does, and that life evolved gradually over billions of years- from tiny steps starting from simple organisms. From these one celled organisms came birds and animals. Problem is, this chain has never been seen. We have millions of kinds of animals, birds and insects- but each animal is still distinct as it's own kind. The missing link has still never been found in fossil records which shows one kind metamorphosing into another kind. Reptiles are still reptiles- no matter that there used to be huge ones, and fur bearing animals are still fur covered. To sum this up, Scientists have never observed anything more than a variation of one kind- they have never seena kind evolving or changing into a completely different kind. The Bible, in Genesis talks about God creating each animal after it's own kind, and each tree and plant after it's own kind. Science has only ever shown this to be the case. Could it be possible that evolution and creation are both true? Some people think so. The idea is that maybe God directed evolution, and this is embraced by many Christians trying to bring their faith closer to what they have been taught about evolution.Imagining that the evolutionary theory allows for a creator is not allowed by establishment scientists. Ask any devoted Darwinist if they believe that God developed living forms through evolution- they will tell you that God has nothing to do with it, that the naturalistic evolution is the creator. Evolutionist George G Simpson said, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."Darwinist doctrine is based on the thought that nature is all there is. People who believe that creation and evolution can be both true don't consider carefully the claims of evolutionists or the detail given in the Bible about the creation. These are two totally polar ideas about the beginning of life. Either life began as a product of impersonal and meaningless slime, or we were created by an intelligent designer.Now, are Christians giving credit to God because we don't understand science? Let's look first a little closer at the issue of creation and design. DNA. DNA acts as a code within the cell. The average DNA molecules contain as much information as any large city library. Newer discoveries about DNA offer amazing evidences for God's creation. Since the middle of last century, geneticists have known that DNA contains instructions like written messages for every living thing, but higher organisms have DNA codes that are broken up by sections of which the sequences look like silliness- which is where the term junk DNA comes from. Some scientists have used junk DNA ro disprove the idea of creation. Other scientists though, have discovered the importance of this so called junk DNA in that it works to correct and regulate genes, turning them on and off when needed. It clearly show an intelligent function, which in turn points to something created instead of evolved. I'm an artist. Now, many people have probably heard arguments like this already, and it seems over simplified, but it is still a true argument. I am an artist. I always start a new painting by having a blank canvas, paints and brushes. I look at my subject, mix and arrange my colors on a pallet then start to paint what I see. Never, ever have I put a canvas on my easel, left it there for a few weeks then come back o find a created painted work. The paints don't arrange themselves on the canvas, and they certainly couldn't evolve themselves into a rendition of a sunset, animal or old barn which are some of the things I paint. No- I have to work with the colors, arrange them, mix them, apply them in areas where they will come together into a stripe on a tiger laying in the shade, or the rays f sun coming through a cloud. See? I create. My paintings are created- they don't evolve. They requirethought and much planning. It is the same with our universe and world. There is just too much evidence which points to order and method - to arrangement and application. According to some biologists however, creation beliefshave no place in a science class, therefore students see only the theory that is taught to them, and don't see much of the debate which shows creation. There are so many books which look closely at the arrangement of the solar system- the distance of the earth to the sun, the magnetic pull between, the length of time for the earth to spin etc. which shows an incredible amount of intelligence that if things were off by even minute, a pound, an inch, there would be no way that we could survive on this planet. The evidence in the way the human body is made also is incredible if you think about how the eyes, ears or brain works- how many miles of tendons and muscles, our bones, everything about our bodies is actually a miracle in itself. In Many places, the Bible talks about the intricacies of the human body, thought and spirit, and also the universe and how the earth moves within it. The Bible states scientific facts that were shown centuries before scientists proved these theories.So, are Christians against science? No way! I for one, as a homeschooling mom, am finding science incredibly fascinating and amazing in the way things work, and in all of my studies, I have come to even more of a knowledge of God than if I was uninterested in sciences. In modern times, many advocates of science would like to think that Christians are opposed to science, and even give that impression in education. John Maddox, editor of Nature wrote that "the practice of religion must be regarded as anti science." If we stepped back in time and asked men such as Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Linnaeus, Kelvin and many others whether Christianity and science were incompatible, they would strongly deny it- as they were the fathers of modern sciences and deeply rooted in Christian beliefs. Christianity actually, if you study true history, helped inspire scientific studies. Back in the days of paganism, the world was looked at as ruled by gods and goddesses- millions of them. These gods determined when it would rain, when the rivers flowed and how life was determined by the stars. Genesis, in the Bible contrasts this by a reliable narrative of the beginnings of the world. As long as nature rules, as with paganism, scientists had a problem finding any answers but when Christianity showed that nature was not to be feared and worshipped, science was able to move forward and nature was able to be studied and observed. Experimental methods of science also has it's roots in Christianity as men like Newton and Galileo wanted to find out how God's creation worked- they wanted to do science instead of just talking about it. They didn't argue about theories- they tested them, as Newton did with gravity by dropping weights off places like the Leaning Tower of Pisa to see what the effects were. Men like Galileo argued that God's ways are not our ways, but that His ways in nature could be discovered by experimentation and observation. Not only this, but their discoveries brought them into a closer relationship with God in the way they became to understand how God's laws of nature worked. Many people are misunderstanding in the belief that since Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic church, that the church is against science. In reality, the Pope who condemned Galileo was not opposed to his scientific ideas, but to the way he used science as a way to attack the church's philosophy which had been adapted from Aristotle. Aristotle's philosophy encompassed ethics,biology, physics and astronomy. when Galileo pointed his first telescope and discovered that Aristotle's theories about the sun was mistaken, as Aristotle believed the sun to be perfect- but in reality, we know it is not. Soon though, Galileo was attacking all of Aristotle's philosophies, wanting to show the world as a machine operating on mathematical laws, with God as the great mechanic. Catholics got worried then, believing that Galileo's theories would destroy the morality of social order. It was really the opposition to different worldiews- not opposition to science. Since God created the world, Christians believe we have an obligation o study it and use it for God's glory and the benefit of all humans. We see science as a way to understand God's relationship with the world, so why would we be against it?So, why is evolution still taught in schools as fact if it's only a theory, and may even not be true? When I was in college, people who believed in the Bible or creation were made fun of, and viewed as unintelligent. Not many younger kids are willing to put up with ridicule from peers and teachers if they believe in the Bible account of creation. Those who are willing to stand publicly for their beliefs are in a sense pounded and attacked as religious fanatics, whose beliefs have no place in education. Who hasn't seen the movie, Inherit the Wind? I saw it, and assumed that it was based in facts about the Scopes Monkey Trial. Later, I realized that it is not at all about what happened at the real trial. In reality, the trial as staged by the ACLU, Scopes was not ever arrested and the people of Tennessee were intelligent and friendly to all the people who flocked to the town of Dayton during the debate. It is, however, this movie, which have given a whole generation a distorted view of Christian beliefs in creation, and which gave evolution a boost from theory to fact. In short, because this is getting too long of a post, whenever someone challenges publicly, the theory of evolution, people instinctively sense that much more is at stake than just simple differences of worldviews. It means that if evolution is disproved, people will have to face the existence of a creator God. If nature is all there is, then there is no god, and ethical and moral standards are not based on what God says in the Bible. Instead, they would e based on what individuals feel they should be based on. If God exists, He created us for a purpose, and we are obligated to live in conformity of His law and order, His laws of nature and morality.Things to think about until next time- consider the ways in which humans move and work. Is there really any evidence you can see which points to natural selection or evolution? Or are there so many complexities that one could see how Christians can believe that we are created? If you consider the solar system and think that what if we were existing on any other planet- how would we survive? Why is the earth the only planet in our solar system with living things on it? Why? Does this show evidence of evolution from a chemical soup, or towards a God with a plan? Suggestion, read the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis, and look at it from a skeptical point of view, then read it again with an open mind of a Creation point of view. Which makes more sense?
For the Story behind an amzing picture- go here