Sunday, September 13, 2015

Dawkin's Science vs the Christian Faith......Maybe they're BOTH wrong?

 Creationist article on Richard Dawkins follows my comments....READ FIRST.....

Science vs Religious Faith.....strange bedfellows.    Maybe BOTH are wrong?

Most people in the Scientific community are atheists and  therefore have rejected the concept of a God and sadly.... .as a result..... they lack the Wisdom revealed in His Word...... the "Bible"..... which has greatly limited their ability to to relate Scientific discovery to human philosophic and religious thought. The result is a very static and sterile understanding of REALITY. Because of this...  Science is forced to embrace a mechanism of Creation that satisfies their observation and understanding of REALITY that does not require the concept of a "Creator." They claim that Darwinian Natural Selection as the total mechanism involved in the Creation of the wonderful diversity of life on this planet satisfies their claim that a God is not required  I suspect this dilemma is caused by the fact that man sees a "beginning and and end" to individual human life. Our mortality inherently affects our observation of reality AND our concept of God.  Incidentally....those who do believe in a Creator, especially "Creationists"  are affected in the same way as atheists and as a result may not truly understand the Message and Wisdom revealed in the Bible either!

The problem here is that man's concept of Creation has a "need" for a "beginning" to existence and for many Scientists frustration with an "end" of existence. The concept that God always existed and always will exist and that His Creation always existed and always will is not an easy idea to "wrap" your head around. 142 years ago French Chemist Louis Pasteur actually proved that "Existence" always existed by proving that "life" always existed in his simple "S" shaped flask experiment that revealed the Law of Biogenesis....."ALL Life MUST come from pre-existing life."   The Bible reveals that this is Truth although most "believers" interpret the Book of Genesis of the Bible saying that "Existence" didnlt "Exist" until God Created it!  This is obviously an "oxymoron" ...however, because of our "mortality" we do not realize this and the result is that we have separated the Eternal God from Existence which is a non-sequitur. Man "needed" to separate God from Creation and claim that Creation and Existence are different REALITIES.....this has to be the most illogical thought ever made.   It is ironic that Science celebrates the fact that Pasteur disproved "spontaneous generation" of life "once and all" and then turn around and claim that the biochemicals of life did "spontaneously" form and "accumulate" into the "first" living cell all because of our "need" for a "beginning."  
and
(BTW....the Miller/Urey "flask" experiment used by atheists to explain the origins of life created amino acids.....the building blocks of proteins...... BUT to claim that proteins, carbohydrates, lipids and nucleic acids also formed by "chance" molecular collision requires MORE faith than believing that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God and ABSOLUTE TRUTH!  (Incidentally....spontaneous formation of the polymers of bio-molecules by random collision would require the violation of the  Laws of Thermodynamics.....another non-sequitur.)

Darwinian Natural Selection is a basic Biological process and there is no question it is observable at the "micro level"....sadly..... in the creation of antibiotic resistant pathogens by over use of antibiotics in treating infectious disease. Antibiotic drugs are strong "selection agents" and because of DNA mutation caused by natural changes in the replication process or external mutation agents like radiation and chemical that alter a pathogens survival traits ....strains of drug resistant pathogens have been "selected"  resulting  no available treatment for many infectious diseases.   Even the "Creationists" have to accept this truth.....however....."Creationists" reject Natural Selection at the "macro level and have attempted to refute Scientific evidence of evolution by embracing pseudo-science to explain their "supernatural" version of Creation of man. Ironically.....I believe Creationists are CORRECT in that man was NOT Created by Darwinian Natural Selection and in fact was Created by "Intelligent Design."  I also suspect that "Intelligent Design" was the mechanism involved in the Creation of both Animal and Plant "Phyla"  however...Natural Selection IS evident within Class, Order and Family taxon.

It is important to realize that there are also many in the Science community who DO accept the God of the Holy Bible and recognize that the Creation of Adam was by "Intelligent Design" like the people who created this website I am commenting to and "myself!"    In my opinion, there is no question that Adam. the first man, was Created in the "Image of God" from the "dust of the Earth"  by "Intelligent Design."   The confusion for both Science and Religion is caused by "believers" not understanding the God revealed in the Bible and Incarnated in the "flesh" in Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ in Greek) and Science ignoring the possibility of a God altogether.  However.....there is a huge difference between what I believe is "Intelligent Design" and the Creationist version. 

The Creationist concept of "Intelligent Design" by necessity requires the existence of what man imagines as the "supernatural."    I believe God is PERFECT therefore His Laws are PERFECT. The "supernatural" implies that there is a suspension or violation of His Laws...in my humble opinion....a non-sequitur since the Laws are already PERFECT.  I believe the "key" to understanding God's PERFECT Laws is His Word...the Holy Bible.   The cause of confusion is NOT what the Bible reveals...it is the interpretation of what it reveals.  When the inspired writers of the Bible wrote the Scriptures, they did NOT know they were writing God's Word nor did they know anyone else was also writing down God's Word and furthermore.....they  had limited comprehension of God's Laws because the understanding of the Scientific Method was off in the "future."  Today Science has revealed much of God's Laws and this knowledge has "opened" up the Scriptures in a "new" revealing "light"  that resolves all alleged contradictions and what many believe is fantasy.  The claim that the Holy Spirit of God reveals the meaning of the Scriptures cannot be totally accurate because God is NOT a God of confusion and the over 500 denominations of Christianity and all the "other" conflicting world religions sure implies that the Holy Spirit of the One True God was not the "only" spirit involved in interpretation of the Scriptures. I believe the knowledge gained through Science is revealing the true message in God's WORD and will prepare the planet for the restoration to God's Eternal Cosmic Family under the Reign of Jesus Christ as King when He returns to the planet EXACTLY THE SAME WAY HE LEFT 2000 years ago.
(Acts 1:8-11)    I submit that the Scripture that says God's ways are so far above man's that we can never comprehend His Laws I believe is illusion because I am certain that this Scripture is referring to God's Love, Compassion, Forgiveness, Patience, Passion, Holiness, Beauty etc...NOT Science!

Ironically.  Science has discovered the Laws and mechanism God used in the Creation of Adam but obviously they have no "clue" since they don't even believe in Him! . In order to understand this, one has to understand the God revealed in Jesus.  The following Scriptures offer some clues.....  Psalm 82:3-6, John 14:8-23, Galatians 3:26-28, Colossians 1:27, 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians:3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 John 4:11-16.   These Scriptures resolve the Hebrew "plural" problem in Genesis when it says..."Let Us Create Man in Our Image."  Most Christians do no understand this because they believe the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity resolves the plural..God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  The concept of Three Persons in One is a mystery but it NOT a case of separate entities....it is fact more like a case of multiple personalities..not separate persons.  The mystery is that the Trinity reveals MANIFESTATIONS of the ONE God..therefore it cannot satisfy the "plural Hebrew " problem.  How does Jesus and the Scriptures I referred to resolve the problem?  I am convinced that these Scriptures and Jesus reveals that God dwells within and works through His Creation and His PERFECT Laws which can and does resolve the plural.  It then becomes obvious that God Created Adam through His Created Children via Recombinant DNA (rDNA)  which explains the 95% common genome between Simians and Humans more accurately than Science's claim man evolved from a common Simian ancestor by Darwinian Natural Selection.   The Bible reveals we are Created in God's Image....we know that "other" Created beings look like God because we are told to be courteous, and hospitable to everyone we meet because we never know when we are in the presence of a Messenger of God..an Aangel...BECAUSE   "they look like us" which obviously means we "look like God!."   The Bible says God Created us from the "dust" of Earth.  DNA is made up of the elements of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorous......."the "dust" of Earth therefore rDNA qualifies as the Biblical "dust."



In conclusion...when the Bible is interpreted through the knowledge God's "gift of Science" ..not only do we begin to understand the True Nature of the God of the Cosmos and that He appeared in the "flesh"  as Jesus and His Sacrifice on the Roman Cross restores "fallen" man to God's Kingdom...WE ALSO realize that this God dwells in our hearts.   God does NOT reject us..it is ourselves that rejects Him because we desire to be "our own gods."  This is the source of all evil.....when we accept the God "in our hearts"..evil is destroyed.   One of the arguments I get from folks who don't believe in the God of the Bible is that the Bible is full of contradictions, therefore it must be fantasy.   When Scripture is interpreted Scientifically all confusion and alleged contradictions disappear!   Sadly.....many people still reject this truth because they do not want t give up being their own god.

In Christ..David Brown


(READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENT FIRST)


IMPORTANT....For those who insist man evolved from apes......The ONLY natural source of new genetic information  that may give an organism some phenotypic survival trait in a changing environment of selection agents is by DNA mutation. The problem is that 99% of mutations that cause genetic change in the replication process or by external agents like radiation and chemical are "lethal" and less than 1 % of any non-lethal mutations occur in germ tissue that form the sex cells necessary to create offspring and pass these possible new survival traits onto future offspring for Natural selection to act on. The Law of Uniformentarianism  implies that the mutations rates through out time have remained relatively constant. Based on this fact.... the evolution of Homo sapiens by Natural Selection from a common Simian ancestor is simply impossible because there was no where near enough "time" to do so.

Therefore....the ONLY logical explanation then for the appearance of Homo sapiens on Earth is Recombinant DNA.  BTW..I suspect man's genome has been constantly "tweaked" throughout history and frankly..I don't think it has ended yet either!

In Christ..David
















Dawkins’s Contributions as a Scientist Are Already Past Their Sell-By Date, Says Nature Reviewer

Posted on September 12, 2015

In the journal Nature, Nathaniel Comfort delivers a softly devastating review of Richard Dawkins’s memoir, part two, Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science. Or let me rephrase that — it’s a devastating review of Dawkins himself as a scientist, including his enchantment with computer simulations. The problem with computers is that they’re only as effective as the assumptions you bring to them. Garbage in, garbage out:

    Much of Dawkins’s research has been in silico, writing programs for evolutionary simulations. In his simulations, life is utterly determined by genes, which specify developmental rules and fixed traits such as colour. The more lifelike his digital animals (“biomorphs”) become, the more persuaded he is that real genes work in roughly the same way. Dawkins’s critics accuse him of genetic determinism. This synopsis of his work shows that his life virtually depends on it.

    A curious stasis underlies Dawkins’s thought. His biomorphs are grounded in 1970s assumptions. Back then, with rare exceptions, each gene specified a protein and each protein was specified by a gene. The genome was a linear text — a parts list or computer program for making an organism –insulated from the environment, with the coding regions interspersed with “junk”.

    Today’s genome is much more than a script: it is a dynamic, three-dimensional structure, highly responsive to its environment and almost fractally modular. Genes may be fragmentary, with far-flung chunks of DNA sequence mixed and matched in bewildering combinatorial arrays. A universe of regulatory and modulatory elements hides in the erstwhile junk. Genes cooperate, evolving together as units to produce traits. Many researchers continue to find selfish DNA a productive idea, but taking the longer view, the selfish gene per se is looking increasingly like a twentieth-century construct.

    Dawkins’s synopsis shows that he has not adapted to this view. He nods at cooperation among genes, but assimilates it as a kind of selfishness. The microbiome and the 3D genome go unnoticed. Epigenetics is an “interesting, if rather rare, phenomenon” enjoying its “fifteen minutes of pop science voguery”, which it has been doing since at least 2009, when Dawkins made the same claim in The Greatest Show on Earth (Transworld). Dawkins adheres to a deterministic language of “genes for” traits. As I and other historians have shown, such hereditarianism plays into the hands of the self-styled race realists (N. Comfort Nature 513, 306-307; 2014).

Note the reference to “erstwhile” junk DNA, the acknowledgement by Comfort that epigenetics and its impact on evolutionary thinking are no flash in the pan, and the recognition that gene determinism plays into the hands of racialists — and, one might add, genuine racists. Also see biologist Ann Gauger’s comments here this morning on the design implications of “dynamic genomes.”

Comfort, a science historian at Johns Hopkins, isn’t impressed by Dawkins’s atheist evangelizing, but he passes over that briefly. At Why Evolution Is True, Jerry Coyne complains that Comfort doesn’t try to argue against Dawkins on the God question. But he doesn’t need to. The aggressive atheist stance shared by Dawkins and Coyne is supposed to be an inference from the science. If the science is already outdated, “curiously static” while science passes it by in the scientist’s own lifetime, what more is there to say?

Continue Reading on www.evolutionnews.org

Everyone agrees that Dawkins is a terrific writer -- his "greatest gift has been as a lyricist," says Comfort. In that respect, we in the intelligent design community could profit by taking notes from him.

But a scientist whose legacy amounts to little more than his sparkling prose style is not going to go down in the history books, at least not prominently. Nor should anyone be concerned that his acid musings on faith will have much impact in the long run.

Image credit: David Shankbone (Own work) [CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Common


Read more at http://creationrevolution.com/dawkinss-contributions-as-a-scientist-are-already-past-their-sell-by-date-says-nature-reviewer/#EAlu0CyBetPYbbHf.99

|

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home