RE: Response on Creation ans Scince
by Willie Heretic - written 26/07/2010 11:44:22
David Silversides wrote (21/07/2010 15:08:14):
There seems to be a volly of messages opposing Caleb's stance on evolution etc. and it would take some time to answer each one. Can I offer some response by stating, at a basic level, that the assertion that the evolutionary view is scientific fact is very unscientifiic. Any view of origins not based on Divine revelation involves speculation since no human being was there to record what took place. Such speculation necessarily involves unifotmitarian presuppositions and automatically assumes that the Biblical and Christian distinction between God's work of creation on the one hand and his subsequent work of providence (and the normal 'laws' by which God operates in the latter) is untrue. There is no scietific basis for this assumption that the origin of things must conform to the laws applicable to the subsequent history of those things. Indeed, it is self-evident that something existing from nothing is contrary to normal observable phenomina. The desire to assume atheism is fully explicable in terms of the Biblical teaching on man's fall and subsequent sinful nature and enmity aginst God. To assert that evolution is fact expresses man's desire not to retain God in his knowledge, but science it most certainly is not.
Your reliance on "divine relevation " and witness testimony to disprove evolution does not hold water. you say that since no-one was around to "witness" evolution makes it an unrelaiable theory. Haven't you ever heard of circumstantial evidence? I quote "evidence that is not drawn form direct observation of a fact at issue but from events or circumstances that surround it"
Yes no-one was around to witness evolution, which is a silly proposition anyway, even if one lived to be older that Methusalah! So the evidence for evolution is mostly circumstantial, but the amount of evidence is so overwhelming to safely draw the conclusion it took place. Many crimes have been proven relying on circumstantial evidence - i.e no-one actually was around to see the crime being committed. Imagine a scenario. A man is sitting in his house, he hears a shot. He looks out of the window and sees a car driveby. He takes a note of the numberplate. He runs outside and finds Joe Bloggs lying shot dead in the street. He phones police, gives them the number of the car. Police check it, and get a name and address. They search the address. They find a gun. Gun matches bullet in victim. Suspects DNA is also found at crime scene. In suspects house police find a diary in which he has written "I hate Joe Bloggs and will shoot him"
So, no-one actually witnessed the crime taking place, the actual shooting taking place. BUT there is enough circumstantial evidence to prosecute and convict the killer. So lets look at the "evidence" of divine revelation and witness testimony in the bible. Who witnessed these revelations being given to the people receiving them? Err nobody. Where is the circumstantial evidence? All we have is hearsay, which generally is not admissable as evidence. I rest my case
RETURN TO CALEBFOUNDATION.ORG