The following video is a TED talk by Alexander Tsiaras, an associate professor of Yale University in the Department of Medicine. Using the latest in technology, Alexander and his team have created a visualization of a human baby from conception to birth. As he says, the more we learn about the intricate details of the structure of the cell and replication, and collagen, etc., the more we must ascribe a Divine origin.
This type of research is leading more and more scientists to move towards the Intelligent Design theory as an explanation for the complexity of life. Illustra Media has also prepared several informative videos that explore the theory of Intelligent Design. I doubt that Alexander Tsiaras set out to advance this theory, but he has done so none-the-less.
This also advances the cause of the Right-to-Life movement by showing just how rapid is the development of the fetus. It's hard to justify abortion with this information, particularly after the first few weeks. Watch the video and come to your own conclusions. As I watched, I thought of these verses written by the Psalmist David.
"For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
(Psalm 139:13-16)
Related Articles:
Let Justice Roll on Like a River
Great Ideas
Losing Our Way
Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
Thought Police
Showing posts with label Creationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creationism. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Friday, March 20, 2009
The New Bigotry
Once again Canadians who follow the news are being made aware of the great lurking danger that is facing our culture... that's right, it's those Christians again. A couple of them have actually dared to allow themselves to be placed in positions for which the leftists among us feel they should be disqualified.
The Government of Canada recently appointed Doug Cryer to a position on the immigration and refugee board. The problem is that this man has dared in the past to oppose same-sex marriage. He's also, (horrors), a Christian who believes that homosexuality is immoral. According to NDP critic Olivia Chow and the gay and lesbian group EGALE those two facts should disqualify him from this position. Their reasoning is that he would be biased against gay claimants.
Of note is that his views are shared by a great many Canadians, and if this disqualifies him and most other conservatives then, by default, all future government appointments must be given to social liberals. Actually, if you look at Canada's Supreme Court that would already appear to be the practice. Many of the changes in our culture have stemmed from precisely the type of muzzling and social engineering that these leftists appear to be promoting. Here's a thought - why not let the guy do his job. If he contravenes the rules, then challenge him!
The second appointment to come under scrutiny in the Canadian Press is the appointment of Gary Goodyear as Canada's Minister of State for Science and Technology. He dared to answer with a "no comment" when he was asked whether or not he believed in evolution. That certainly got the hounds howling against this admitted Christian. Here's a sample quote: “It is the same as asking the gentleman, ‘Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds,” said Dr. Alters. “Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun.”
So now the "theory" of evolution is as much a "fact" as gravity. That would be news to a great many eminent scientists who would say otherwise. Even if you want to say that and if Mr. Goodyear does believe in creationism, does that disqualify him from this position? If so, it would also disqualify Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, Pasteur and a great many of the pillars of modern science who believed in creationism and believed it made them better scientists. They believed in a God who created the world according to a pattern. That belief spurred them to look for those patterns and the laws which He laid down in nature. Far from being an inhibitor, their faith enhanced their science.
A deeper look reveals the depth of animosity and bigotry against the faith community in the sciences. Even if you don't like Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," you at least have to acknowledge that the scientific establishment has gone out of its way to make life difficult for believers, and even non-believers who dare to question evolution's place.
Here's the way I see it. Evolution has, for years, been the only acceptable view for origins within science. The reason for that was a fundamental shift from science as a simple pursuit of truth. That pursuit used to be defined by the willingness to go where the evidence leads. Now that has been replaced with an unofficial dogma that whatever explanation we come up with for the origin of man must be naturalistic. Whatever evidence there may be for special creation must be ignored because it appeals the supernatural.
This shift is then combined with the scientific principle that no theory is discarded until a more plausible theory emerges. These two lynchpins virtually assure that, even if there is a God who created this world, science will never investigate nor admit it. So we read the breathless reports on a regular basis of the numerous "missing links" that have been discovered only to find later that they aren't missing links at all. We still have textbooks that include "Haeckel's Embryos" as evidence for evolution when they were long ago proven to be fraudulent. This is one example of many. It appears that science has taken a leap of faith and pinned all of its hope on evolution.
Before I'm labelled as a complete imbecile (I likely will be anyway) let me say that the simple definition of evolution is change. This type of evolution is clearly demonstrated within species. All life adapts within certain parameters. Look at dog breeding for example. What has not been demonstrated is Darwinian evolution which claims that all life evolved from a single life form. I'm still looking for the evidence of "speciation", the transition between species which Darwin said would be clearly evident within the fossil record. Until and unless the evidence is seen, I think it would behoove scientists to admit that the theory of evolution is not the unassailable fortress it is purported to be. If it is, why do they feel the need to vilify scientists like Michael Denton, who wrote "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" in 1986.
Unfortunately, the two sides cannot even agree on a definition of the word. The Oxford Concise Science Dictionary defines it as "evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years." Yet, scientists themselves, like Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology say: "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
The truth is that for evolution to be true it must be true across all fields of science. My point is this - stop making categorical statements that aren't true. To claim that all life on earth originated from one amoeba that crawled out of some primordial ooze or that flew here on the back of a comet is just as much of a faith claim as "God created."
Beyond that, stop this endless attack on any Christian who dares to throw his hat into the public arena. Some Christians I know are open and fair-minded and intelligent thinkers. Others I know are narrow-minded, repressive and ignorant. The same can be said for atheists and agnostics I know. Let's get on with it - and keep talking.
The Government of Canada recently appointed Doug Cryer to a position on the immigration and refugee board. The problem is that this man has dared in the past to oppose same-sex marriage. He's also, (horrors), a Christian who believes that homosexuality is immoral. According to NDP critic Olivia Chow and the gay and lesbian group EGALE those two facts should disqualify him from this position. Their reasoning is that he would be biased against gay claimants.
Of note is that his views are shared by a great many Canadians, and if this disqualifies him and most other conservatives then, by default, all future government appointments must be given to social liberals. Actually, if you look at Canada's Supreme Court that would already appear to be the practice. Many of the changes in our culture have stemmed from precisely the type of muzzling and social engineering that these leftists appear to be promoting. Here's a thought - why not let the guy do his job. If he contravenes the rules, then challenge him!
The second appointment to come under scrutiny in the Canadian Press is the appointment of Gary Goodyear as Canada's Minister of State for Science and Technology. He dared to answer with a "no comment" when he was asked whether or not he believed in evolution. That certainly got the hounds howling against this admitted Christian. Here's a sample quote: “It is the same as asking the gentleman, ‘Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds,” said Dr. Alters. “Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun.”
So now the "theory" of evolution is as much a "fact" as gravity. That would be news to a great many eminent scientists who would say otherwise. Even if you want to say that and if Mr. Goodyear does believe in creationism, does that disqualify him from this position? If so, it would also disqualify Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, Pasteur and a great many of the pillars of modern science who believed in creationism and believed it made them better scientists. They believed in a God who created the world according to a pattern. That belief spurred them to look for those patterns and the laws which He laid down in nature. Far from being an inhibitor, their faith enhanced their science.
A deeper look reveals the depth of animosity and bigotry against the faith community in the sciences. Even if you don't like Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," you at least have to acknowledge that the scientific establishment has gone out of its way to make life difficult for believers, and even non-believers who dare to question evolution's place.
Here's the way I see it. Evolution has, for years, been the only acceptable view for origins within science. The reason for that was a fundamental shift from science as a simple pursuit of truth. That pursuit used to be defined by the willingness to go where the evidence leads. Now that has been replaced with an unofficial dogma that whatever explanation we come up with for the origin of man must be naturalistic. Whatever evidence there may be for special creation must be ignored because it appeals the supernatural.
This shift is then combined with the scientific principle that no theory is discarded until a more plausible theory emerges. These two lynchpins virtually assure that, even if there is a God who created this world, science will never investigate nor admit it. So we read the breathless reports on a regular basis of the numerous "missing links" that have been discovered only to find later that they aren't missing links at all. We still have textbooks that include "Haeckel's Embryos" as evidence for evolution when they were long ago proven to be fraudulent. This is one example of many. It appears that science has taken a leap of faith and pinned all of its hope on evolution.
Before I'm labelled as a complete imbecile (I likely will be anyway) let me say that the simple definition of evolution is change. This type of evolution is clearly demonstrated within species. All life adapts within certain parameters. Look at dog breeding for example. What has not been demonstrated is Darwinian evolution which claims that all life evolved from a single life form. I'm still looking for the evidence of "speciation", the transition between species which Darwin said would be clearly evident within the fossil record. Until and unless the evidence is seen, I think it would behoove scientists to admit that the theory of evolution is not the unassailable fortress it is purported to be. If it is, why do they feel the need to vilify scientists like Michael Denton, who wrote "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" in 1986.
Unfortunately, the two sides cannot even agree on a definition of the word. The Oxford Concise Science Dictionary defines it as "evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years." Yet, scientists themselves, like Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology say: "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
The truth is that for evolution to be true it must be true across all fields of science. My point is this - stop making categorical statements that aren't true. To claim that all life on earth originated from one amoeba that crawled out of some primordial ooze or that flew here on the back of a comet is just as much of a faith claim as "God created."
Beyond that, stop this endless attack on any Christian who dares to throw his hat into the public arena. Some Christians I know are open and fair-minded and intelligent thinkers. Others I know are narrow-minded, repressive and ignorant. The same can be said for atheists and agnostics I know. Let's get on with it - and keep talking.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
ORIGINS 101
The following is another article I saved in my files a while ago. This was written by Rusty Benson and gives a primer on the debate about origins which is taking place in the U.S. This is for those of you who want to know what all the fuss is about and what the differences are. Enjoy.
Origins 101: Worldviews Begin With Beginnings
Rusty Benson
AgapePress
Nearly a century-and-a-half after Darwin's Origins of the Species was published, and 75 years after the Scopes trial, the argument over life's origins still inflames contentious debate.
Today three distinct theories of origins compete for public affirmation. Darwinian Evolution remains entrenched as the orthodox position of the cultural ruling class. Once challenged by Creationism, Evolution's latest contender is a theory known as Intelligent Design (ID).
As in the past, the debate regularly surfaces in the context of which theory or theories should be taught in public schools.
In El Tejon, California, Americans United for Separation of Church and State bullied a school district into promising that it would never again offer a "course that promoted or endorses creationism, creation science or intelligent design." However, in Kansas the State Board of Education recently approved a set of science standards that question evolution.
Even President Bush has weighed in on the issue saying, "Both sides should be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about."
So far that hasn't happened. The result is a largely confused public.
The following is offered as a synopsis of Creationism, Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. For a more in-depth study of these theories and the implications of each, see the suggested resources listed at the conclusion of this article.
Creationism - Also called Creation Science, this theory attempts to defend the biblical account of the origins of the universe. Creationists freely admit that their presuppositions are different than evolutionists', and thus, their interpretation of the archeological evidence is often different.
In addition, creationists frequently use independent data from the fossil record and from radiometric and carbon-14 dating to make their case.
Variations of Creationism include the Young Earth Theory (closest to the literal Genesis account), the Gap Theory and the Day-age Theory.
Darwinian Evolution - Charles Darwin was a 19th century British naturalist who first offered a plausible naturalistic theory for the origin of life in his book On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
According to Darwin's theory, the universe is without a beginning and life on earth evolved over a span of three to four billion years by the process of natural selection. Natural selection, according to Understanding the Times by David Noebel, is "the process that through competition and other factors such as mutations, predators, geography, and time naturally and randomly allows only those life forms best suited to survive to live and reproduce."
Concerning the status of man in the evolutionary process, George Gaylord Simpson, paleontologist and evolutionist, bluntly stated: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material."
Intelligent Design (ID) - The heart of the theory of ID, according to Nancy Pearcey, author of the landmark book Total Truth, is that design in nature can be empirically detected.
She writes that ID "formalizes ordinary intuition." For example, we instantly recognize the difference in a landscape formed by wind, rain and erosion and one that includes Mt. Rushmore. That difference is the clear evidence of a designer. It's the same kind of observable science that enables an archeologist to distinguish between a rock and an arrowhead.
In presenting their case, proponents of ID often point to recent scientific research in three areas:
(1) The inner working of cells: Scientists are learning that living cells are like a complex assembly line in which each part serves a perfectly timed, specific purpose. If the whole system is not complete and functioning flawlessly, it cannot perform at all. ID proponents argue that this kind of irreducible complexity is clear evidence of a designer.
(2) The origin of the universe: ID proponents say that life is only possible when thousands of variants such as gravitational, nuclear and electromagnetic forces are meticulously set and balanced. Again, they claim this is the perfect working of a designer's plan.
(3) The architecture of DNA: DNA is seen as the most convincing evidence of the work of design. It is often described as remarkably computer-like, with the DNA code analogous to software that directs the DNA molecule (hardware). This information is embedded in the DNA molecule, but is separate from the matter that makes up the molecule itself. The question becomes: "Where did the information come from?" Answer: an intelligent designer.
Winner Take AllWhat's at stake in the debate? In short, everything. "Whatever a culture adopts as its creation story shapes everything else," Pearcey writes.
If evolution continues as our culture's official orthodoxy, Christians can only expect the complete secularization in all areas from education to entertainment, from philosophy to politics. And with the natural implications that human beings are neither accountable nor responsible, the future is likely to be one in which raw power rules.
But don't give up too quickly. Although it faces an uphill battle, acceptance of ID as a viable theory of origins is growing. At a minimum that could result in the re-establishment of the discarded idea that human life has inherent meaning and purpose. And that could change everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
