Unfortunately today evolution and science are promoted as unbiased while creation and religion are said to be biased. A definition of bias is "An opinion before there is reason or before all facts are known." Everyone is biased because no one knows all facts. Scientist, evolutionist and creationist are all biased. After working in research and development for 18 years I know scientists are biased.
All scientists have the same facts; the real difference between evolutionists and creationists is how their biases determine their interpretation of data. Evolutionist start with a bias of naturalism (everything came into existence through natural processes) while the creationist bias is theism (God created everything). Both evolutionist and creationist use their biases to build a model or framework by which they interpret the world.
How does bias relate to science? Science can be divided into two general categories as either Operation (Hard) Science, which is testable, occurs in the present and is repeatable; this includes physics and chemistry. The other category is Origin (Soft) Science that is based on analysis of information about the past; includes anthropology and paleontology.
As an example, how would you scientifically prove if dinosaurs exist today? Operationally you would need to have one person on every point of the world looking in every direction at the same time with 100% observational abilities to collect all data. The existence of living dinosaurs cannot be determined by looking at their dead bones. The creationist bias says there could be living dinosaurs and evolutionist bias says they died out millions of years ago. They both have the same data but their bias determines what they believe.
Here are more examples of operational science evidences that fit the creation model and not evolution: Conservation of angular momentum and planetary rotation, Short lived comets, Missing meteorites in fossil layers, Mutations decrease genetic information, Niagara Falls erosion rate and the Sahara desert still expanding
While science supports creation, it must be understood that both creation and evolution are religious views. Neither can be explained by science and therefore must be held to by ones bias and belief system. No, God does not play dice with the cosmos; He is sovereign over it. He has placed laws and processes in place that can be tested and bare witness that His word, the Bible, is true.
The on going conflict between evolution and creation is and always has been about God's authority. What you believe about the validity and accuracy of the Bible determines your acceptance or rejection of God as the authority over your life. Evolution is mans attempt to justify his existence apart from God and supernatural processes.
A persons predetermined bias dictates their interpretation of facts. Your biases determine your belief system and your belief system determines your attitudes and actions. There are two worldview biases: naturalism and theism. Theism teaches God created everything and all men are subject to His authority.
A naturalistic bias says that God is not the creator. All things result from evolution and natural processes. God could not have written the Bible so anything therein is mans writings, which are suspect and open to interpretation including moral laws. Moral laws are whatever is the current day's philosophy.
What is the result of evolutionary teaching? Several 20 th century political systems have had evolution as a core premise. They believed that man has developed from a lower form and they should actively help the process along. While some, in the name of Christianity, were inconsistent with their own moral standards by participating in atrocities (Crusades), those that followed evolutionary bias were not. They committed holocausts of unimaginable proportions based on their evolutionary bias.
Adolph Hitler adhered to the teaching of people like Ernst Haeckle and subsequently tried to eliminate the "Inferior Races." These included Jews and blacks with upwards of 10,000,000 dying in concentration camps.
Evolution as a pillar of communism resulted in the deaths of millions: Joseph Stalin - 50,000,000 in Russia , Mao Tse-tung - 80,000,000 in China and Pol Pot - 2,000,000 in Cambodia .
Evolution has been used to justify the abortion holocaust: over 44,000,000 have been killed in this country alone.
In all this God's authority has been rejected and replaced by mans evolutionary bias, and men become the authority to do what they see fit. Evolution's end result is the devaluing of a human life where the unwanted can be eliminated. And man as the authority can and has turned this world into a living hell. Do not be deceived God is ultimately in control and every person will one day answer to their Creator.
I have yet to find any evidence that supports evolution. If you believe that evolution is true and have empirically testable scientific evidence that support your position, I would like to hear from you.
I have seen a number of comments both in the paper in through my e-mail in regards to my letters. I appreciate the open discussion from both sides, but I have yet to find any plausible reason to believe in evolution. I have asked for someone to provide empirical testable evidence that supports evolution and only received two examples that did not explain how evolution took place. The fact is that there are no empirical evidences that can be used prove origins for either evolution or creation. Things and processes that happened in the past cannot be tested; the only data and evidence that exist is in the present.
To say that evolution is a fact is misleading. Unless it can be tested and shown that it is taking place today it cannot be called a fact, it is a belief about what might have happened in the past. No one was there to see the past; therefore assumptions must be made to derive conclusions about the past. Data inferences about the past are based the interpreter's bias. The question is with which bias, theism (creation) or naturalism (evolution), is the data more consistent.
All theories and conjectures about the natural world's development are meaningless without first defining the origin of life. Natural selection can only operate if there is a self-replicating organism already in existence.
The second law of thermodynamics says that all systems tend to go to their most probable state of equilibrium. Chemicals left to their own, even with the input of energy, do not form macromolecules like proteins or DNA. In fact, natural processes tend to push all things toward an increase in equilibrium and entropy (disorder).
The existence of a living self-replicating cell is consistent with special creation. All the biochemical activities of a cell (i.e. chemical processes, feedback mechanisms, protein machines and DNA programming) are needed for a cell to function. The cell contains irreducible complexity, and can only be simplified to a point before it becomes nonfunctional. If any major system is missing, you do not have a living cell.
There are no processes in nature that can produce a living organism from non-living chemicals. There must be a preexisting program and a mechanism to read that program in order to form both macromolecules and sustain life. Therefore the existence of life is consistence with a Creator. It may be said that this argument is not valid, but without the spontaneous development of a living cell's indispensable functions evolution is not possible.
I have read with interest the responses to the letter written by Steven Johns ("The Bible accepts homosexuality," People's Forum, Nov. 21). There were a number of responses to the letter trying to explain what the Bible teaches. Several writers list a variety of verses and one writer stated you must compare "scripture with scripture." The arguments by these writers appear to be using circular reasoning with the Bible to defining the Bible. If what the Bible teaches about homosexuality or any other moral or spiritual issue is obvious then why are there different interpretations?
Another letter titled "Bible doesn't reflect humanity's advancements" (People's Forum, Dec. 1) also caught my attention. Mr. Monjon's main argument is that scriptures, written 2000 years ago, are not totally valid for modern man. They reflect the moral state of the time in which they were written. He states "Biblical comments on spirituality, I believe, are wholly true. Biblical comments on sexuality, medicine, science, history and the like are as flawed….". It appears he believes that modern man has left the constraints of the past and that what was morally true in the past is not true today.
The proceeding letters and references have a common theme - can the Bible be trusted.
There are many reasons why people don't trust the Bible, but the greatest is mankind's desire is to decide truth for him or herself. Deciding truth for oneself allows a person to do what they want and justify their actions. The influx of secular humanism and evolution into society over the last century has given a frame work by which mankind can justify his own relative truth. You can not have universal moral truth if you do not have an absolute standard by which to measure that truth against. If you say the Bible cannot be trusted than the standard to measure universal moral truth is eliminated. Man then becomes no different than a skunk, tulip or bacterium. At this point, whatever it takes for survival becomes truth.
In fact, this is what evolution teaches. There is no difference between a human and a bacterium. One has just developed more than the other has, and so, moral truth for the bacterium is the same as for a human - survival. The teaching of evolution has secularized our society and is used to interpret everything from science to the Bible. Unfortunately, there is no scientifically testable evidence that shows evolution to be true. Science is the collecting of facts about the natural world. Evolution is the interpretation of facts based on a predetermined bias that God does not exist and therefore there is no universal moral truth.
Evolution has also woven itself into the church so that many churches now teach compromises positions on creation. It is no wonder that the Bible is not trusted if those who claim to follow the Bible have thrown out the parts in which they do not agree.
I find it interesting that most people who argue against creationism and intelligent design (ID) do not really understand the nature of science. They except evolution fact and dismiss creationism as "a pseudo-science ruse" as Kenneth Nelson stated in ("Even with gaps, evolution is still scientific fact," People's Forum, Nov. 23). Mr. Nelson also in referring to evolution states "It is just plain, hard science." Really, what is hard science?
To be hard science there are three factors to consider. First, science is observable. To be science an event must be seen and recorded. The past cannot observe. Second, science can only take place in the present. All the data that a scientist has from plants, chemical reactions and fossils exist in the present. Third, science must be repeatable. An event that only happens once and cannot be repeated is not hard science.
Evolution is not science! Why, because it is an interpretation of things that happened in the past based on information that only exits in the present, made by people who live in the present. Evolution violates all three factors. Evolution as an origin of life cannot be observed because it happened in the past. It cannot be experimented on in the present because it happens to slow. And it cannot be repeated because by definition it is a one directional process of increasing complexity by chance occurrences.
Evolution, creationism and ID are all interpretation issues. They cannot be proven by science. They are theories and so subject to interpretation.
Mr. Nelson lists dates of 195,000 and six million for the age of possible human ancestral bones. I assume these ages are based on radiometric. This dating method is based on the ratio of parent and daughter isotopes. While the isotope measurements may be accurate the dates applied to the concentrations are based on scientifically unprovable assumptions. Such as how much of each isotope was present at fossil formation, if any isotopes were added of removed over time by processes other than radiometric decay or changes in the decay rates.
Unfortunately, evolution is being masqueraded as hard science when in fact it is an interpretation of science based on a bias of naturism. Science should not be taught as if evolution is the only interpretation, but that there are other explanations for the same data.
The question of origins continues to be an issue with the debate over the concept of intelligent design. With the resent court decision in Dover , PA there is a misunderstanding of intelligent design (ID). Is (ID) science or only an excuse used by those who do not understand science and must invoke supernatural intervention to explain the complexities of the world?
ID, as a theory, is based on the scientific discoveries of the complex processes, information, and discoveries found at the molecular level of the cells. These processes include transportation systems, chemical assembling plants, molecular motors, sieves, and energy conversion reactions all controlled a by a digital pre-coded chemical information system known as DNA. Nowhere in science do we find information coming into existence by itself. Information always comes from information. The premise of ID is that the existence of molecular biological systems and the information that controls them is far too complex to have arisen by chance occurrences and must have an intelligent designer.
Many ID theory proponents such as Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. William Dembski, and Dr. Jonathan Wells do not approach ID from a religious view but as a logical conclusion of scientific data.
ID is an interpretation of science, and along with evolution and creation, is based on the interpreter's bias. However, ID carries a burden. The question that must be asked is, what is this intelligence? ID does not define the intelligence, so this intelligence could be any god or force oozing through the universe. In and of itself ID does not answer the ultimate question of origins.
To answer the question of origins it is a matter of faith. In the real world where science is testable, observable, and repeatable evolution is not possible. For random chance to produce complexity it must overcome the overwhelming tendency of all matter and energy systems to progress to greater disorder and equilibrium (2 nd law of thermodynamics). ID and creationism both maintain that the world is too complex and must have been designed. However, creationism answers the question of origins. God is the origin of all things in the physical universe. The 2 nd law is consistent with creationism where a well-ordered and designed universe is deteriorating to greater chaos.
This website designed and maintained by