A Leauki's Writings
The Word is "Lie"
Published on June 16, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 


Comments (Page 8)
42 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10  Last
on Jun 23, 2008
You have to separate Evolution from Darwinism. I think that is most of the problem with fundamentalist. Darwins theory is not fact but certain aspects of evolution are fact. Darwinism was not taught in school to me as fact but more to show where some of his explanations fit it with the current science at the time I was in school.

You also need to realize that Genesis being literal is a fundamentalist christian notion. Most christian sects do not believe Genesis should be taken literally. So please separate your brand of christianity from christianity itself.
on Jun 24, 2008

I never did any such thing. Show me where I said this. Proof's on you.


So we have reached the point where you pretend that you never argued that evolution is wrong because the Bible says so?



I'm tired of your misrepresenting me Leauki. And calling me a liar everytime I talk with you.


Everybody has seen you being told something and then, the next day, you claiming that that never happened.

Maybe you are as forgetful as that, I don't know. But if that were true, I suspect you would have made it a habit to read yesterday's comments again before you post a long time ago.

It really did look as if you were simply lying.
on Jun 24, 2008

You [KFC] also need to realize that Genesis being literal is a fundamentalist christian notion. Most christian sects do not believe Genesis should be taken literally. So please separate your brand of christianity from christianity itself.


Her claim that everything that is against Creationism is against Christianity is just another one of her lies.

Don't worry. I know that Christianity is not what KFC says it is. I have the greatest respect for Christianity and its teachings. But I also have no respect at all for the fairy tales of Creationism that claim that my god (and yours) is an incompetent engineer (at best) and a hateful puppet master (at worst).

Real Christians certainly have no problem reading about and understanding evolution AND the Bible.

But I doubt KFC has ever so much as looked at one of Richard Dawkins' books. (And they are difficult to understand. I am still working on it.)

My problem is that I don't understand biology and zoology that well, otherwise I could explain evolution better. Referring to books only helps with those who would read them.

Incidentally, while reading science books, especially Dawkins', helps one understand the theory of evolution, reading the Bible does not help one understand Creationism.

I know more about religion than about biology.

But I think I have made the point that religion does not have to (and typically doesn't) make one superstitious.
on Jun 24, 2008
Looks like some god has hidden another fossil to fool the ignorant scientists into rejecting Christianity:

http://museumvictoria.com.au/About/MV-News/2008/Mother-fish/

"a remarkable 380 million year old fossil placoderm fish with intact embryo and mineralised umbilical cord."

My hypothesis is that some god created a species of fish with umbilical cords 6000 years ago and then, in his ultimate wisdom, caused that species to die out (presumably in the flood).



on Jun 24, 2008
SMOOTHSEAS POSTS:
Creationism theory brings scientific study nowhere but to a dead end. You can't build on it because the "intelligent designer" is supernatural. It isn't science.


With all due respect, you are mistaken. Theology, knowledge of God and His works, is the highest science.

You've bought into Scientism, today's atheistic claim, that science has provided them with proofs that belief in Genesis is only superstition based on ignorance. They say God isn't necessary and Genesis is an outdated "fairy tale".

Atheists absolutely need Evolution to be true...yet, it's a conundrum for their "science", called Evolution, or Darwinism has shown no proof at all to contradict that Almighty God created the universe and all that's in it.

We've seen that the word "Evolution" itself is confusing and I think that's becasue it is part truth and part lie. Ever since the 1800s, "Evolution" has become identified with Darwin's theory which is that all life forms, including man, are the result of long development in time by chance, by natural selection and by survival of the fittest, in a constant battle for survival.

Evolution rightly means all processes, within kind, unfolding in time, but it also wrongly includes progress or development that will result in a better, higher condition than when it started. This is Darwin's theory of Evolution, the part that's contrary to truth, the part that atheist's use to sell that Genesis is a fable. By excluding God from Creation, Darwinism creates a dogma for atheism which is preached as true in schools all over the world.

The identiication of the words "science" and "evolution" with Darwin's theory, aka Darwinism, is a perversion of their original meanings.

Darwinism is nothing other than a make believe story with no proof scientific proof either in the lab or field and certainly not in the fossil record even after 150 years of looking. Darwinism can't be observed and can't be empirically tested.

Darwinism is the only way atheists can explain why we are here...their creation myth is it all either happened by chance, or life was brought to earth by extraterrestrials..the atheists in Hollywood and the media are helping in this regard...witness the latest Indiana Jones movie.
on Jun 24, 2008
Lula posts:
The Creation model begins with the earlier presupposition that the universe and all that's in it reflects Almighty God. These unexplained mysteries can now be given scientific explanations.


OCKHAMSRAZOR POSTS #90:

Really? So how does science explain how God created everything? How did he make atoms? How did he make gravity? How did he do all this? I've been dying to know...I'm so glad you have access to the science that explains these mysteries because I missed it somehow. Please enlighten me.


I apologize for taking so long in replying..

Creation science isn't afraid to apply the core wisdom of Genesis to 2 questions:
Where do we come from? and Where are we headed?

Creation isn't a theory, it's a fact revealed by Almighty God. The universe, the oceans, the plants, animals and we humankind are here is scientific fact or truth. While Genesis doesn't give us a technical scientific account by any means it does give us scientific truths. Sceintific truth never will contradict Sacred Scripture.

The Creation model begins with what is already existent by the will of God. It starts by calling the universe and all that's in it, an intelligent project, a project of reason.

Science can't probe the act of Creation, the "how" did God do create as He did.... that's because God merely spoke the word and it was. To know "how" God created we would have to comprehend God and no finnite mind can do that.



God didn't give details on "how", only "when" He made His creation, "In the beginning".

The things of Creation had a first moment, "in the beginning" before which it didn't exist. So therefore scientists have a good place to start with...referring to that moment we say the world was created at the beginning of time.

While the how of Creation itself is a mystery, we know Creation began in eternity and time began with them and belongs to them becasue of their successive duration.

on Jun 24, 2008

Theology, knowledge of God and His works, is the highest science.


Then you and I use different definitions of science.

Theology is by definition an art concerned with the supernatural, whereas "science" is, by definition, an art concerned with only that which can be observed.
on Jun 24, 2008
Theology, knowledge of God and His works, is the highest science.


I like that Lula. True.

Today a Jewish believer, who is highly respected and known all over the US, Israel and Europe, said this to us as I wrote down his words:

Today the Evolutionists are telling us Christians if you don't believe in Evolution you are uneducated, unsophisticated, ignorant; almost barbaric.

Denying the Creator is not only unscientific and incorrect it's wicked.

The heavens declare the glory of God and the skies proclaim his handiwork. For man to look at the universe and not see the Creator behind it shows us the wickedness of the human heart."


Yes Jesus said himself that Satan has blinded the eyes of man and you're right Lula, they are falling for the lie.

This same Jewish man who is very educated btw said later he wishes to talk to us about Evolution, Global warming, the oil crises and who's really behind it. When you push aside all the followers you'll find just a handful of very powerful political men behind the scenes pushing this all forward for a very wicked purpose as we continue to roll towards a one world order system.

He said, and I agree and have been saying myself, never in the history of mankind does the world seem so end times climatic as it does today. Look at Iran, Russia, China. Look at what's going on with our weather and storm situations, look at what's happening to our young people, look at what's happening to our resources, gas, oil, and food. Never in our history ever, ever was Russia and Iran allies. Today they are. Well Ezekiel wrote this down 2500 years ago saying this would happen in the end times. Today we are seeing it all come together before our eyes. Israel has just come out ready to fight Iran and Russia has stepped forward to say "you better not." This is hugely biblical as in 2500 years ago predicted.

Most christian sects do not believe Genesis should be taken literally. So please separate your brand of christianity from christianity itself.


Then I wouldn't call them Christian. The historic Christian faith says we are to take each word from the original HEbrew and Greek as the very words of God. So much later (like today) they say NOT and I'm to believe the modern way? Why? Just because?

My "brand" of Christianity is biblical. I line myself up with the bible and the first century believers. What happened after that doesn't concern me anymore. I was there once and learned my mistake in following such "believers" only to realize they had no idea what they are talking about.

Remember Jesus said the road to him would be narrow with believers. The broad way ("most" as you assert) has all sorts of travelers on it. So you are correct that I am separated from the "other brand" of Christianity. But you are incorrect in assuming the "other brand" is correct. Because, see they are NOT following the first Century church but have gotten lost somehow and ended up on that other road.











Amazing. And yet people still bicker and say the bible is a fairytale. Wow! This has got to be from somebody who has never really read it.

on Jun 24, 2008
We've seen that the word "Evolution" itself is confusing and I think that's becasue it is part truth and part lie.


This is it in a nutshell. The genius of evolution is that it makes enough of the same predictions that creationism makes to be believable.

Smoothseas you brought up DNA earlier and I meant to ask you this in response but got carried away with Leauki.


Which evolutionary thought processes have contributed to a better understanding of genetics that creationism would not also have contributed equally?

Let's get to the nitty gritty.



on Jun 25, 2008

Atheists absolutely need Evolution to be true

 

That's a lie.  I don't need any such thing.  If Evolution were completely disproved tomorrow, I'd drop the idea like a hot rock and not think twice about it.  But I also wouldn't just fill in the gap that was left with God.

 

I think a truer statement is that fundamentalists need evolution to NOT be true.

on Jun 25, 2008

Which evolutionary thought processes have contributed to a better understanding of genetics that creationism would not also have contributed equally?


I see where this is going.

You ask for evidence. Somebody gives you a link to an article explaining everything in detail.

A day goes by.

You are back in some discussion and lie about having been given the answer.

I think I should refuse to point you to any more articles.

Anybody curious about and capable of understand evolution has probably learned what he could now.

I recommend Richard Dawkins' books. They explain everything best.

KFC, we can talk again once you read them.
on Jun 25, 2008

Atheists absolutely need Evolution to be true

That's a lie. I don't need any such thing. If Evolution were completely disproved tomorrow, I'd drop the idea like a hot rock and not think twice about it. But I also wouldn't just fill in the gap that was left with God.



My point is that this debate continues because atheists (in general) think Darwinism Evolution disproves God. William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell U. calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man.


I recommend Richard Dawkins' books. They explain everything best.


We have discussed Dawkin's book on another blog. Dawkin's is a disciple of Darwin and he wrote, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."










on Jun 25, 2008

My point is that this debate continues because atheists (in general) think Darwinism Evolution disproves God.


In that case I am not sure what you are discussing because I don't think anybody brought that up.

I don't know how Darwinist evolution could disprove G-d and I have never heard of any atheist, including Professor Dawkins, who would have made such a claim as you seem to remember.

Anyway, did you or did you not read Richard Dawkins' books about evolution?

Because I sure read the Bible, even invested considerable time and effort in understanding it. (For example, I have no academic background in biology, but I did study Hebrew.)
on Jun 25, 2008
I think a truer statement is that fundamentalists need evolution to NOT be true.


Just to be clear, whenever I see "evolution", I take it to mean Darwin's Theory which is called Sarwinism.

Believers don't need Darwin's Theory or any of the theories in this world to believe in God. They have the supernatural gift of faith which brings out my point that theology is the highest science.

Believing in God and Genesis is easy. Just look around...no amount of Darwinism could ever do that.

And that's the panic for atheism and those otherwise true believers in Darwinism....for at every turn, the vast and accumulating evidence of modern science is agaisnt Darwinism.

It turns out that science itself is the death knell of Darwinism.









on Jun 25, 2008
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/06/10/wind/


It turns out that science itself is the death knell of Darwinism.


We keep and keep finding fossils that prove Darwin right.
42 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10  Last