The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church at a meeting last month issued a resolution that doesn’t mention evolution but is clearly all about evolution.
1) We affirm that Adam and Eve were special, unique direct creations of God, created in His image, with Adam being formed from the dust of the ground and Eve being made from his side; as such, they were real human beings and the first man and woman;
2) We affirm that the account of creation Adam and Eve as found in Genesis 1 and 2 is history;
3) We deny any teaching that claims that the account of creation of Adam and Eve as found in Genesis 1 and 2 is mythology;
4) We deny any theory that teaches that Adam and Eve descended from other biological life forms and that such a theory can be reasonably reconciled with either the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church or Holy Scripture.
But what is the purpose of a resolution that is simply ignored?
“The ARP church may adopt position statements but it does not dictate what we teach at Erskine,†Edwards said in an email. “I have never been told what I can teach and I have always been encouraged to teach real science, including evolution. Since this position statement about Adam and Eve was adopted, the president of Erskine and the incoming chairman of the Board of Trustees have told me (and all of the Biology faculty) to continue teaching as we have always done.â€
“But what is the purpose of a resolution that is simply ignored?”
Perhaps it will be ignored by many. But it’s a very important statement considering that many who chose to attend a Christian collage do hold that foundational belief.
Just a molecule to man evolution is a faith based religious humanist doctrine, Adam an Eve must also be accepted by faith, neither are observable.
Learning the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution’s theories is a must for a proper understanding of what’s true and false. The biased beliefs of both creationist and atheistic humanist sometimes stand in the way of reality.
Wile teaching such a balanced approach to evolution is illegal in the public school system, it is one of the strengths of many Christian schools.
Chris, you have a distorted view of evolution in particular, and of evolutionary theory in general.
The phrase “molecule to man evolution” is scientifically meaningless. Neither evolution nor evolutionary theory has anything resembling the concept embodied in that phrase. Specifically evolution, and therefore evolutionary theory, requires existing life as given; the issue of how life first arose on Earth is ignored.
The alleged “scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution’s theories” invariably degrades to the standard Creationist fare, while ignoring the real strengths of evolutionary theory: its ability to guide successful scientific research in many disciplines within biology, even within geology albeit to a far lesser extent.
The allegedly “balanced approach” taught in some Christian schools is not a strength. Indeed, it’s a weakness. Such an approach may backfire on students who wish to attend universities and colleges that require the correct teaching of evolutionary theory. See http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/acsi-v-stearns for an instance of such “balanced approach.”
Chris,perhaps you may find this informative ?http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/
Rubbie, I’ll agree, even though molecule to man is a common description of evolution’s theory on the grand scale it could encompass the origin of life which is not evolution. My mistake,’ evolution stands without a foundation or any verifiable source of beginning. Evolution’s common ancestry story begins with imagination, not observation.
The balanced approach I was referring to acknowledges the strengths of evolutions in biology, which are many. I see the weaknesses in the ongoing religiously motivated quest to produce fraudulent transitional creatures. Pretending such imaginative creatures are real achieves nothing but funding for those who dream them up. Having fact and fiction equal in biology degrades the entire science as these bogus entities come and go.
Ivorygirl, thanks for the link but heres a question. Looking a the page “Why Evolution is True” it states that there was a single lineage which gave rise to life 3.5 billion years ago. How is it know there was a single lineage when it’s not known what the life was or how it arrived?
Nowhere has it been show that undirected mutation and natural selection has produced the vast amounts of information required for the diversity of life. Darwin said. If it could be demonstrate that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications; my theory would absolutely break down.” Can you show where any complex organ has formed by numerous, successive slight modifications?
According to Encyclopedia Britannica even the simplest cell contains enough information to fill a hundred million pages of their book with more complexity than any machine known to man. With the human body containing an estimated 100,000,000,000,,000 cells programed with specific information for various task, accepting Darwinian evolution as true sounds far more like faith than fact.
Ok Chris. In the reading of your posts, all you do is criticize evolution. So, let’s assume for arguments sake evolution is wrong, what’s your alternative?
Chris, when you use the term “information,” precisely what do you mean, scientifically? Will you describe how to measure “information”? If not, then what is it, scientifically speaking?
I ask, because the common scientific definitions of “information” are all observed through the very mechanisms that you deplore: undirected mutation and natural selection. Therefore, I conclude that your definition of “information” differs from those found in the scientific literature.
Ivorygirl “So, let’s assume for arguments sake evolution is wrong, what’s your alternative?”
Follow the evidence.
Rubbie, you’re pretty funny. How could one deplore undirected mutation or natural selection. But apparently unlike you I do think their abilities have limitations.
Good question. What is the information contained in a cell and how is it measured?
Here’s one explanation, Darwin’s buddy Haechel said the cell contained merely “homogeneous globles of plasm” And from this state of total ignorance along with a few fraudulent drawings the new era of infinite knowledge was ushered in.
Of course today we don’t have golbles of plasm, and most of our vestigial organs aren’t vestigial anymore, but we do have junk DNA, which at some point I imagine won’t be junk.
Genetics has certainly came a long way. Many of the functions within the cell have been identified, but the observation of the instructional information and it’s complexity goes far far beyond Darwin’s assumptions.
Looking at the statements of Sagan and Dawkens it would appear that science has barley scratched the surface of your questions.
The late astronomer Carl Sagan observed that a single human being is composed of what he referred to as an “ambulatory collection of 10 to the 14th power cells†(1997, 22:965). He then noted: “The information content of a simple cell has been established as around 10 to the 12th power bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica†(22:966). Evolutionist Richard Dawkins acknowledged that the cell’s nucleus “contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together†(1986, pp. 17-18, emp. in orig.). Dr. Sagan estimated that if a person were to count every letter in every word in every book of the world’s largest library (approximately 10 million volumes), the total number of letters would be 10 to the 12th power, which suggests that the “simple cell†contains the information equivalent of the world’s largest library (1974, 10:894)! Stephen C. Meyer suggested:
Chris, Quit the side stepping, I do not know of any alternative that has any validity other than evolution and I have most certainly followed the evidence. So, I have answered your question now answer mine. Tell me your alternative to evolution, your lack of response will show me that you don’t have one.
Ivory girl
Certainly there could be many alternatives to the theory of evolution. The question for me is how much do we know and how much do we know in relation to what there is to be know? Would it be safe to say we know 50% of all there is to know, I don’t think so. How about one percent? We don’t even know what is to be known to consider how much we know or don’t know.
So you have followed the evidence for evolution, so have I. Evidence put’s innocent people in jail, freed OJ and has produced Obama’s birth certificate. So for me the evidence is suspect. I’d like to know the source, if there is bias, are people getting paid to support it, is it a secular humanist religious doctrine or some other religious doctrine. Is it real evidence or conclusions drawn from a preconceived notions, has the evidence been falsely fabricated or concocted. Is the supporting evidence selected wile ignoring other facts which invalidate it.
As to how life has evolved I certainly wouldn’t want to paint myself in a corner with only one possibility. The evolution of every species is a testable fact. Dogs come from dogs, cats from cats and man from man this we know, anything beyond that is speculation. Drawing legs on whales or tails on people doesn’t change the facts any more than saying God did it.
To answer your question from my view everything we know that we do know requires an inventor, designer and creator. There is no evidence that dirt made itself or that it has independently evolved into brick pavers. Because you don’t know the builder doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Ok Chris so let me see if I understand what you are saying.
Evolution is a conspiracy concocted within the atheistic science community.
Most all evidence for evolution is false or biased.
All species were created much in the “kinds” we see them today with no transissions
You are a ID/ creationist proponent which requires a creator.
Ivory gril
—————
I couldn’t give you a passing grade on your assumptions. but you are entertaining.
“Molecule to man” is an incorrect description of evolutionary theory. The origin of life itself is also not a part of current evolutionary theory. Most of what Chris says is some shade of “wrong”.
However, it sure is a facinating topic though. We have made so many discoveries regarding the mechanisims by which evolution takes place, and the different genetic factors that lead to certain variations in both the animal and plant kingdoms. We are already tinkering with DNA and modifying plants and animals for specific traits. I hope that someday we do reach a point where a theory can develop that does address the origin of life at the molecular level – or even to discover a way to create life ourselves from scratch. How fantastic would that be?
Joshua,we may be getting closer.Did you read this? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0712/breaking36.html
…