Hey everyone, I wanted to get the Coptic Church's view on evolution. When I say evolution, I don't mean that theory that we evolved from ape like creatures....I am just curious about all the skeletons and bones that were found that date back to a few million years ago...how do you explain that.  I know that God created the earth and all the things in the earth, but I was just curious to what the Coptic Church's view on all of this is...thanks


  • [quote author=mgirgis88 link=topic=5759.msg77045#msg77045 date=1190055757]
    Hey everyone, I wanted to get the Coptic Church's view on evolution. When I say evolution, I don't mean that theory that we evolved from ape like creatures....I am just curious about all the skeletons and bones that were found that date back to a few million years ago...how do you explain that.  I know that God created the earth and all the things in the earth, but I was just curious to what the Coptic Church's view on all of this is...thanks

    The Church completely opposes the drastic outlook of the theory of evolution. The only part that the Church is okay with is that people or animals adapt to different environments where they live after a long time (I know that you said this LifeInChrist so please forgive me for stealing it). Although, the more referred to version of the theory is that species completely change (e.g.: monkeys to humans), is completely against Church doctrines. As LifeinChrist said, "So they find the old skeletons so what? it is from God's creation a long time ago," sorry and not trying to be mean LifeinChrist, but that is a total assumption. You can't be so sure unless you are the archaeologist that found them. They could have been some contemporary transformations that have taken place over a more recent generation of animals.
  • Dating is an odd science. I would like you to read Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator"
  • sorry what i meant was that the theory of evolution as i have recently heard is invalid. adaption and changes to survive in an environment is valid but evolution is invalid. the newest creation theory is "intelligent design" which is a politically correct way to say GOD.
  • Whatever the case, look around. The mechanisms that made the Universe and everything therein are spectacular. There can be no doubt that design, purpose and intelligence inspired and established all the Universe. Let us not be like the deist Einstein (however clever he was as a physicist and mathematician) who marveled the Universe and called it god. No, let us be more intelligent than Einstein, knowing as great as the Universe and how it is unfathomable (Einstein thought that the most surprising thing of the Universe is that it can be encapsulated, which is now absurdity); let us also remark that amongst the void, the stars, the moons, the planets, the trees, the plants, the crops, the herbs, the rising waters, the birds of the heavens, the fish of the sea and all crawling things- that God reserved a special place for you.

    Your purpose is not to ensure the survival of the species. Your infirmities, is a mysterious call for striving- not just an accidental mutation that occured in the ambience of natural hostility and radiation, that ensured diversity that can be lifesaving in anticipating changes in the environment. The mutations of the world are a result of the Fall- but God would not allow such malady, unless it can have a purpose. Natural selection was established as a insight into God methodicalness- and its violations an example of the God's personal love us.

    Let us give thanks, for He personally created us, and breathed life into us, and bestowed on us His Holy Ghost.
  • ok so basically the bottom line is that our Church is okay with the adaptation part of evolution, but obviously not the part that we evolved from apes, which is obviously not true and extremely absurd. I agree with Doubting Thomas on the Intelligent Design factor and all who mentioned it, but evolutionist will always try to counter anything you say with the intelligent design theory.  For instance, if we were designed by God, why do some people encounter obesity, cancer, heart attacks, and all sorts of diseases, and why can't we find a cure for these things if we are so intelligent.  It's just so hard to explain to them and to get into their heads about these things.  God Bless you all, please pray for me.
  • Just answer them saying that God never made anything perfect. God is the only perfect being and nobody else can match his perfection. Some diseases cannot be fixed once they are reached and if they are fixed then they are definitely the lucky minority.
  • Hmmm...

    The existence of imperfection can be traced from the Fall of Mankind, and the idea of perfection.

    For instance, ask St. Peter, who has excelled greatly among the saints, whether the struggles he went through were curses on him. If we read his message in his first epistle, we read how the trials and the tribulations are to perfect out faith- the real asset we have- not our health, our livelihood, our friendships and all.

    Perfection is only sweet when we taste the bitter. We can only love when we have experienced hate.

    Further, the Fall of Mankind was the example that the perfection- the absence of disease and pestilence- was not the perfect environment to develop character and experience the awesomeness of God. They wanted to become as god by means not from God; now we have the blessings to partake in the divine nature and become like gods by God. It's not that Adam did not have this opportunity, but in a "perfect" world, there was little chance to be humbled before God from infirmities.

    The problems of the world scream our limitations, and instill in us hope and faith and love. Hope that these tribulations are for our benefit, and will result in greater glory. Faith in God, because heck we know we are useless without him (I mean how many times we have tried something ourselves and failed?). And Love, because we are moved by compassion to those hurting and we can share this moving and reassuring feeling- so potent that sometimes it just numbs the pain better than any analgesic.
  • I think what you guys are condemning is the Philosophical Belief in Existentialism, which the Church definitely condemns, but the Church remains quite silent around Scientific issues and I believe it should remain that way. Evolution neither states that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world. Even if we humans really did evolve from monkeys and so forth it does not discredit God of His creativity. I will quote St. Augustine who said:
    "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."

    Likewise, St. Augustine also said elsewhere:
    "With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

    It is the literal reading of the Scriptures and the rejection of the Allegorical can mislead us from the true purpose of our reading. The great philosophical teacher Origen was a great proponent of this allegorical reading of Genesis, and almost every book of the Bible saying:
    "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."

    He similarly, says in another passage that the days of Creation are a prime example of this: "And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone, and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world."

    St. Augustine saying this also:
    "But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"

    The Early Church Father S. Iranaeus shows us how to reap the spiritual benefits of reading the Scriptural passages allegorically saying:
    "Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. But according to the cycle and progress of the days, after which one is termed first, another second, and another third, if anybody seeks diligently to learn upon what day out of the seven it was that Adam died, he will find it by examining the dispensation of the Lord. For by summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end, He has also summed up its death. From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Now he died on the same day in which he did eat. For God said, 'In that day on which ye shall eat of it, ye shall die by death.' The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this day, underwent His sufferings upon the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the creation, on which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death."

    For this reason, myself a believer in Evolution, yes even in humans, see that it makes sense, if were to use the theory itself to explain what it was that God did to create the world, that God created the world in such a way that he helped man evolve from the lower species to the higher species he is presently in, as to "form" a vehicle suitable for the type of rationality given us (that is when we were "breathed on through His nostrils), and made in His image and likeness. I attribute this theory to C.S. Lewis.

    Hope this helped.
  • [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]

    ^^ Everyone needs to read the above post.  Simply fantastic.
  • Ya, I totally agree.

    I'd like to share my view which is quite similair to C.S. Lewis.

    Now, let's first start with Genesis, if you look at the order of the creation of life, you'll find that the first simple forms of life started in the water, and then also it moved to dry land.

    Now, when we read in Genesis chapter 2 more details about the creation of man it says:

    Gen 2
    4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.  7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    Note the order in verse 7: the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    This formation of man from the dust of the earth, how long did it take? An instance, a million years? The bible doesn't specificy. Moreover, scripture says that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years as a day, ie God is above time, so it's totally irrelevant how long this formation of man took. The point is that God used the dust of the earth (molecules and atoms) to form man, since every element and organic/nonorganic structure in this world is made from atoms.

    Now, after man was formed (in my opinion, the physical aspect of man), God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. Okay, so that is what differentiates us from other forms of life, we were given the breath of God (ie the life giving spirit), and we thus are a rational, spiritual, immortal (the spirit doesn't die) living soul.

    The evolution theory is merely trying to explain scientifically how life was formed on this planet.
    The Bible tells us the purpose of this creation, not the process. And I fail to see where a contradiction exists. I'm perfectly fine with believing in both, and if there's a flaw in my thinking, then please share your view. Even if evolution turns out to be totally wrong, that still doesn't matter, and if one day they can prove it, then so be it.
  • Excellent posts, thanks to Hos Erof, and Thomas,

    The Holy Bible was never intended to be a scientific book but rather it tells us about the plane of God toward His perfect creation, the man. That is why heaven and earth will path away but man will enjoy eternity whether with God or otherwise.
    No one can point to a single verse in the story of creation and find any fault with it, again the Bible is not a scientific book but what in it dose not contradict science.

  • I am sorry Moomoo, but allow me to disagree with you. I think the events describing the Creation in Genesis are to be taken literally. Not literally to the point where I mean God created Adam in a 24 hours (a day), but that, no matter how long it took, these events literally happened. Of course, each event serves its own symbolical purpose, but that does not prevent it from actually taking place.

    I greatly respect C.S. Lewis and consider him to be a genius and prodigy of his time. This however, is something I can never come to believe in... It's almost like saying Genesis was a nighttime story I tell my younger sibling so that he stops talking in school the next day. It never happened, I'm just using it to teach him something. To imply that "he [God] helped man evolve from the lower species to the higher species he is presently in" for me is not Biblical in any way, shape, or form.
  • Hmmm. My problem with treating Genesis simply allegorically (I adamantly agree that it shouldn't be used as a scientific book) is that I still think it still should be used as a historical account. For the genealogy in the NT all trace to the Patriarchs, and Moses. I disagree with Origin who thinks we must be stupid to believe in the narrative account, and I accuse him of being naive of the elaborate and dubious way Naturalistic science explains our existence.

    So, agreeing that it should not be used to derive scientific truth, it should hold that Adam and Eve existed, are our parents, and that they did sin- because these things are what the Gospel hinges and treats as historical realities.

    If we did evolve from apes (not monkeys; their DNA is way too different), then, my friend, you would most likely have several Eves and Adams. Many of the Church's teachings will be seen as rather fanciful, some of which are:
    - Women were made to be companions of men
    - that men were herbivores
    - that our fallen state is due to Adam's willful disobedience that he dared to commit in paradise
    - and a myriad of other things.

    As a person who keenly has followed the Evolution debate, I think that there is very little reason to embrace evolution from one ancestoral organism. I believe it makes sense when looking at archeological records to see that animals were made in kind, and then they evolved.

    These are my humble opinion. St. Augustine is a Latin saint, and I do understand the crux of those passages; that our idiotic way of treating the Genesis as the scientific account of Man is superfluous, simply because it was not designed to be so. But, I think we must believe that this is the brief account of real historical truth, that is overtly simplified. But to think this simplified version is completely fallicious is very very dangerous. The things in which the Prophets and the Apostles affirmed as historical should be affirmed. Our Salvation is a reality that we need, not based on whimsical events. I take your point that the story of Salvation may begin with much more of an elaborate story that was hence simplified, but I don't see how that is profitable?

    That is my humble belief.
  • Doubting Thomas...I never said that we should read Genesis as pure allegory, as some different people in history have done, but what I am saying is to read parts that were meant to be strictly allegorical and poetical as so. Otherwise, there would be no reason for me to believe that the Logos of God, was incarnate and took the form of a slave to save me. Because this indeed is a historical truth. If the historical narratives of the Bible which are essential to our understanding of her are nothing but mere allegory, than there would be no reason to even believe a word of it.

    That is because every religious myth (or allegorical story as you might call it) is based on a truth, every symbol is firstly based on something we can see, touch and feel. And in this way Christianity, reconciles reconciles Allegory and Literality and harmonized. This is exactly what the Lord Jesus came to do. Through His holy teachings we learned of this harmony, because the Jews had forgotten, especially once the first humans were evicted from the Paradise of Delight, where our true mystical unity with God was. They had forgotten that the Law was made for man and not man for the Law. They had forgotten that the Holy Scriptures were filled with prophetical understandings that were meant to be fulfilled, not in the absolute sense in which they were written, but that their allegory were revealed in both the literality of our corporeal existence (namely our Lord Jesus') and the allegory which uses the literal (in her speech, for no one can speak purely allegorically or literally) to bring us closer to that Great Spirituality, the Incorporeal Who brought us the Corporeal, into existence. For this the Lord Jesus came, to bring their understanding to the Allegory of His Incarnation from the history He became part of. It is important to note that every single passage, and indeed every single word ever uttered in this Life, has an Allegorical parallel of much greater height. But we will never truly come to understand this great Allegory if we cannot understand the Literal. How can we say that we love God whom we cannot see, when we do not love our brothers?

    As we know, Incorporeality created corporeality. Simply because there is but One Thing that can be Incorporeal and that is What has no Beginning or End. Corporeality was brought forth ex nihlo (Out of nothing), however Incorporeality is the Absolute. The Uncreated, the only thing that begets Existence, which because is not that Absolute is bound by its own non-existence. And we now that non-existence has the characteristics of Nothingness. Now we exist and therefore we are an intermediate between these two, therefore we have the ability to move closer to either non-existence (Pure literality) or to the Ultimate Existence (Pure Spirituality), but never fully to either one. Therefore our finite selves can move closer to the Unity with God, where we become more than just corporeal. We are then clothed with the likeness and Grace of Incorporeality.

    From this, we learn to move from our Literal understanding of Life, to its Spiritual.
  • The concept of evolution is looked degraded while adaptation is accepted.
  • Over time alot of "SCIENTISTS" claim to have deveoled theories like evolution to prove the bible wrong. They usually have little proof but all athiests and every one belives them especially in the UK where it is completely accepted as the "real" orgin of humans. Don't believe them at all. Animals can't change into other animals like this exept maybe with selected breeding which only changes the appearence of the animal only etc. The cration story in Genesis is word for word true but somthing weren't mentioned which we don't need to know as humans.
  • http://freehovind.com/download
    check it 4 ur selves
    this is the ultimate truth, 4 me anyway
  • Oh, please. Naturalism (a philosophy) has been quite persuasive and become analogous to the Scientific method, and thus, the embrace of Evolution.

    Many prominent biologists have written scores of book debunking Evolution. My own research into credible textbooks have disproven what has been said in my highschool textbooks, and has shown the strength of argument for evolution is not anymore stronger than in Darwins time. In fact, since the discovery of DNA, its replication, formation etc., the singularity event of forming the primitive cell has become unrealistic. It has been paralleled to the idea of having a alphabet soup, and a fan, and by that we get a whole volume of Encyclopedia Britannica.

    I don't believe that Genesis should be used as a Science book, but neither do I believe we should accept that some, even many, Scientists wouldn't defend a theory that has little validity. And that is because, again, Naturalism has become so widely accepted. Hence, evolution has become the only secular solution that can be provided with the best evidence of the day.

    And, it has to, in a way. Could we live in a world where we would stop when someone has a terminal disease, and say it was an infliction from God, deal with it? Inquiry, investigation, observation and repetition is something we should always embrace.

    Nothing is more abhorrent to a reasonable man than an appeal to a majority; for it consists of a few strong men who lead, of knaves who temporize, of the feeble who are hangers-on, and of the multitude who follow without the slightest idea of what they want. (Goethe)

    Why do I believe Naturalism is a philosophy? Well, because Science requires "regularities", "repetition" and "observation". Many Scientists believe that macroevolution does not fit these criteria, and my personal belief after some reading is that I agree. But I will not tell you that it is laughable.

    However, I believe Cephas is right; there is nothing in Evolution I find that threatening.
  • This might help justify my point that Naturalism is a philosophy heavily invested in Evolution (I am not saying that Evolution is wrong, but that acceptance of the philosophy leads to acceptance of Evolution).

    EARLY IN MAY, the American Enterprise Institute held a debate about Darwinism, a faith embedded in many debates, whether scientific, religious, or political. The recent irruption of atheism can be traced to the Darwinian creed, for the well-publicized testimonials of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens all have recourse to Darwinism at various points.

    It purports to explain how we got here without any need for God or gods. Darwinism is best seen as 19th-century philosophy -- materialism -- dressed up as science, and directed against a theological argument for the existence of God. (The only one of St. Thomas Aquinas's "proofs" that resonates with us today is the "argument from design.") Richard Dawkins famously said that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

    Political theory was uppermost at AEI -- it is, after all, a public-policy think tank. The question before the house: "Darwinism and Conservatism: Friends or Foes?" The main combatants were Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University, and John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Also on the podium were John Derbyshire, who writes books about mathematics and is the "designated point man" against intelligent design at National Review; and George Gilder, the well-known writer who is also with the Discovery Institute.

    Arnhart, the author of Darwinian Conservatism (2005), has carved out a nice niche for himself by arguing that conservatives need Darwin. He makes his case by presenting conservative political ideas and arguing that Darwin's theory of natural selection supports them. Darwinian mechanisms give rise to a "spontaneous order, "he said at one point, contrasting it favorably with the "utopian vision" of liberals.

    West argued that the issue is not really amenable to a left-right analysis. He quoted the late novelist Kurt Vonnegut, a self-described secular humanist, who said last year that our bodies are "miracles of design," and faulted scientists for "pretending that they have the answer as to how we got this way."

    In Darwin's Conservatives: The Misguided Quest (2006), and in his talk, West rejected the claim that Darwinism supports traditional moral teachings. Darwin's Descent of Man, published 12 years after The Origin of Species, overflows with arguments embarrassing to conservatives and liberals alike. "Maternal instinct is natural, but so is infanticide, "West writes, de-scribing Darwin's explicit position. "Care toward family members is natural, but so is euthanasia of the feeble, even if they happen to be one's parents."

    The truth is that Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted in support of any cause whatsoever. Steven Hayward, a resident scholar at AEI, made this clear in his admirable introduction. Darwinism has over the years been championed by eugenicists, social Darwinists, racialists, free-market economists, liberals galore, Wilsonian progressives, and National Socialists, to give only a partial list. Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, Communists and libertarians, and almost anyone in between, have at times found Darwinism to their liking. Spencer himself first used the phrase "survival of the fittest, "and Darwin thought it an "admirable" summation of his thesis.

    Both selfishness and (with a little mathematical ingenuity) altruism can be given a Darwinian gloss. Any existing psychological trait, from aggression to pacifism, can be deemed adaptive by inventing a just-so story explaining how genes "for" that trait might have arisen. The genes themselves do not have to be identified, nor does the imagined historical scenario have to leave any trace behind.

    The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more "fit," or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is "fit" (otherwise it wouldn't exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. If an organism possesses features that appear on the surface to be inconvenient-such as the peacock's tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag-the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit.

    So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It "explains" everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason. The impact of Darwinism on any and all political groups can be argued any way you want and it's not very illuminating for that reason. So the AEI discussion frequently veered off into related areas.

    INEVITABLY, the subject of intelligent design came up. National Review's John Derbyshire right away sought to conflate it with creationism. Someone in the front row reminded him that there were no creationists present. Derbyshire replied that a judge had equated intelligent design with creationism and that was good enough for him. There is considerable confusion about the relationship between the two, so let me try to elucidate. Creationists for the most part say: "When it comes to origins, we take our guidance from the Bible. What others say about natural selection, shared ancestry, and so on is of little importance to us. We already have our faith and our Book and we are sticking to it. "It is separatist in spirit. "You scientists can do your thing, just let us do ours, which is study Genesis and pray."

    That was a deal as far as the Darwinians were concerned. The creationists could be ignored.

    Intelligent design is not like that. It is aggressive and therefore potentially dangerous. It says to the Darwinians: "You don't have the evidence to support your claims. Your lab results and fossils don't support your theory. Organisms are way too complex to have arisen by chance. Take all the time you want, it won't be enough. Even though we don't know how it happened, these critters must have been designed somehow."

    It takes the war to the enemy, in other words. So it can't easily be ignored. It is informed by science, not religion. That is why it has made Darwinians angry, and why they try to identify it with creationism. They have also imposed a rigid orthodoxy upon all whose hiring, credentialing, and promotion they can control. They are not interested in any debate. Discovery Institute people told me that last year a group of graduate students from prestigious universities wanted to learn more about intelligent design. A conference was arranged in which these young people showed up and wore nametags with pseudonyms and all papers were collected up at the end. The students were afraid that their identities would be leaked to their professors. That's the intellectual climate surrounding this is-sue today. There are parallels with the Soviet dissidents in the 1970s, who had to communicate by samizdat.

    In the question period, I asked Derbyshire if he could think of any observation that would count as falsifying Darwinism. He said: "I think miraculous creation would do it. The miraculous appearance of an entirely new species."

    That answer at least points us in a useful direction. Pursue it, and we might be able to clarify the Darwinian conundrum. The point is that in Darwinism a philosophical assumption, rarely explicit, circumscribes the "scientific" conclusions that are permitted. The assumption is this: Only naturalistic explanations can be allowed within biology. Naturalism implies the exclusion of mind, intelligence, or absolutely anything except atoms and molecules in motion. Nothing else exists. Everything must be explained in terms of physics and chemistry and anything beyond that will be derided as "creationism." Good Darwinians are not allowed by their own rules even to entertain the possibility that intelligence was involved in the origin or development of life. No research is needed to come to that conclusion. It is axiomatic within the theory.

    Derbyshire responded: "Scientists embrace naturalism because science is a naturalistic pursuit. A working scientist is by definition naturalistic."

    That is incorrect. From scraps of unearthed rubble, archeologists infer design when no trace of the designer remains. A scientist investigating how automobiles are made goes to a factory and learns that the assembly line originated in plans and blueprints, which in turn originated in the minds of men.

    Ah yes, the mind! But that, too, consists of nothing but atoms and molecules in motion, no? Which brings us to the Inner Sanctum of the materialist dogma: Mind itself is nothing but matter. Free will is an illusion, and so on. (Darwin accepted these propositions, noting "the general delusion about free will.")

    There is no reason in the world to accept the materialist faith, but once you do, then something very much like Darwinism has to be true. Life exists-we got here somehow, along with billions of other organisms. So how did it happen? Must have been that animals self-assembled a little bit at a time, in a long chain of accidental survivals.

    THE SCIENTISTS DERBYSHIRE talks to at Cold Spring Harbor Lab say there is no controversy about Darwinism and so he counseled that "we can only defer to that consensus." Because every observation they ever make seems to corroborate the Darwinian tautology, most scientists probably do believe that the theory is universally true. But as the philosopher of science Karl Popper saw, the same was true of Freudianism. For good Freudians, everything seems to confirm the theory because it is protected against falsification by its own logic. Likewise Darwinism. "To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological," Popper wrote. "There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this."

    Derbyshire displayed a distressing willingness to slander those he disagrees with. He said of the Intelligent Designers: "You don't do any science. You go around the country on your expense accounts, which is one of the things I kick them about. You don't do any research." (Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman says this is just plain false and lists several ID researchers.) Derbyshire even accused Michael Behe of Lehigh University of recommending to a hypothetical student with a research proposal that he not carry it out.

    Derbyshire recalled that he said to Behe: "If a graduate student came to you and said: 'You know, I've got this great idea for a possible evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum. I think I could figure it out and I've got an idea for some experiments that would test this. Would you recommend me to go along with that?' And Michael said no. Which left me stunned. This is obscurantist."

    George Gilder interrupted. Where was this encounter?

    Derbyshire: "At National Review. At that meeting we had."

    Gilder, who was there, questioned whether Derbyshire had given us a correct ac-count.

    Derbyshire: "No, it was a plain no. I'm sorry."

    (The curious can listen to the "audio" of the whole conference on the AEI web-site.)

    I sent Behe an e-mail. Could he verify this account? No, he could not. "John Derbyshire is imagining things," he wrote back. "I would never have said such a thing. I welcome experiments into evolutionary pathways. It has been my experience that the more we know, and the more experimental work is done, the less and less plausible Darwinian mechanisms become."

    Chapman, also present, recalls no such exchange with Behe.

    Incidentally, Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, is now out. It reports on new intelligent design research, but I have only started to read it.

    I have left Gilder to the end. As always, it was intriguing to hear him grope his way through ideas that he was discovering even as he spoke. "The word comes first," he said at one point. "The information precedes the proteins." He has been studying information theory for years, and one of his conclusions is that the information carried by a channel must be distinct and separate from the channel itself. DNA -- a string of nucleotides -- does not explain how the information (needed to construct proteins) got into that DNA in the first place. That, we know nothing about.

    He flailed at the "materialist superstition." He castigated the idea that thought and speech, "originating in human minds, can be reduced to various secretions of the brain." Emphasizing the hopeless fluidity of Darwinism, Gilder joked that Arnhart has found himself "a beautiful Darwinism, a James Dobson Darwinism, a supply-side Darwinism." If it's true, it's also "trivial." It fits neatly inside any and every box. Like Freudianism, it's a philosophy -- a world-view disguised as a science.

    Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (Regnery Publishing). This article is taken from the July/August 2007 issue of The American Spectator. To subscribe to our monthly print edition, click here.
  • in short

    ServantOfJesus : you dont know what you are talking about
    clay : you know

    and this material i am presenting will enrich both of you.
    please download it & see 4 urself

    so here is where u can get it:
    18.6 GB of material
    download them one by one, u dont have 2 download it all.
    use utorrent it supports this feature, just select none then
    mark the one u will download

    this material made evolution as father Zakaria on lifetv made islam,
    not true
  • I think clay posted the correct way of thinking concerning this grave issue.

    I had studied biology, and I am VERY against this so called evolution theory: it is not and may not be called scientific. So what is it: a pseudophilosophico-parascientific attitude or myth-cult.

    It exists in the minds of highly fictional or self-convinced highly imaginative strongly wishing-it-to-be-true people, or those whose scientific thoughts were directed since early educational or studying years towards believing it as being the sole truth - while it is not.

    I can study and understand it only as being one of the numerous possible theoretical scenarios that various scientists may come up with - that's all.

    taymourlang, is this torrent the same material found in this page:

    K. Hovind is enduring tribulations for exposing it, sadly to the delight of both atheists and satanics.

    sorry to add I do not like your last comment though

    this material made evolution as father Zakaria on.....

    totally unrelated, unexpected

    I also dislike all insulting YouTube videos of one nicknamed Venomfangx and his co - beware not to click his posts by accident
  • [quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=5759.msg80991#msg80991 date=1200310686]
    I think clay posted the correct way of thinking concerning this grave issue.

    i do agree with you & that is what i am demanding to think right

    [quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=5759.msg80991#msg80991 date=1200310686]
    I had studied biology, and I am VERY against this so called evolution theory: it is not and may not be called scientific. So what is it: a pseudophilosophico-parascientific attitude or myth-cult.

    It exists in the minds of highly fictional or self-convinced highly imaginative strongly wishing-it-to-be-true people, or those whose scientific thoughts were directed since early educational or studying years towards believing it as being the sole truth - while it is not.

    i studied biology too, being a graduated pharmacist
    i didn't believe many things in the text books, as they are against what Bible teaches and the differences between the so called facts,
    in different years and different varities of science books.
    for that turned about to be out of evolution theory i knew where to begin, i used to have nothing to say about it, neither good or bad.
    but deep inside me doubts were there, misunderstanding, lack of
    comprehensive knowlege, i dare not say anythig not to even myself
    but not anymore though not anymore at all

    [quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=5759.msg80991#msg80991 date=1200310686]

    taymourlang, is this torrent the same material found in this page:

    no not the same, check the content 4 urself

    [quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=5759.msg80991#msg80991 date=1200310686]

    K. Hovind is enduring tribulations for exposing it, sadly to the delight of both atheists and satanics.

    sorry i dont understand what u mean

    [quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=5759.msg80991#msg80991 date=1200310686]

    sorry to add I do not like your last comment though

    this material made evolution as father Zakaria on.....

    totally unrelated, unexpected

    sorry it was meant to be fun, humourous
    but now it doesnot seem to be, but still is true though  ;D

    [quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=5759.msg80991#msg80991 date=1200310686]

    I also dislike all insulting YouTube videos of one nicknamed Venomfangx and his co - beware not to click his posts by accident

    thx 4 the tip i'll keep that in mind
    sorry if my opinons hurt anybody, but still does not conflict with my coptic orthodoxy
  • I think that evolution is a new religion by itself. It is a bit like communism trying to take over peoples minds. I have a question, what happens to all the average people who are tricked into believing in evolution?
    By the way...
    + Have you noticed that most catholics now believe in evolution thus turning the story of adam and eve into a symbolic myth!
    + However orthodoxes reject this
  • [quote author=Kirmich link=topic=5759.msg81011#msg81011 date=1200414483]
    I think that evolution is a new religion by itself.

    it is, excellent, they cant present facts yet want u to believe

    [quote author=Kirmich link=topic=5759.msg81011#msg81011 date=1200414483]
    + Have you noticed that most catholics now believe in evolution thus turning the story of adam and eve into a symbolic myth!

    bravo, and yet some say, well it doesnot affect our faith, it doesnot conflict with the church, hey the theory holds water.
    oh .. they drive me crazy,they r such a ...... >:(

    Kirmich : you r most wellcome  :-*
  • [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]

    [quote author=Kirmich link=topic=5759.msg81011#msg81011 date=1200414483]
    I think that evolution is a new religion by itself.

    When did scientific theories become religion?

    [quote author=Kirmich link=topic=5759.msg81011#msg81011 date=1200414483]
    + Have you noticed that most catholics now believe in evolution thus turning the story of adam and eve into a symbolic myth!

    How can you speak for 'most' Catholics?  Do you know 'most' Catholics?  Are you aware of what 'most' Catholics believe?  You seem to be forgetting that Alexandrian Church (of which you and I are a part) was very big on allegory, and an allegorical interpretation of the Bible.  Master Origin was a huge proponent of this school of thought and he did take Genesis to be symbolic as did a few other Church Fathers.

    [quote author=Kirmich link=topic=5759.msg81011#msg81011 date=1200414483]
    + However orthodoxes reject this

    Again, the Orthodox Church is silent on the issue of Evolution.  Just because your sunday school teacher or your priest may be against the idea does not mean that the Church is against it.
  • Dear sisters and brethren,
    dear Κηφᾶς,

    I must apologize for my augmented tone above, it is because I was severely affected by it: for long years I was in a state of severe doubts myself because of the impact of this evolution theory on my thoughts and logic.

    When did scientific theories become religion?

    It is a fact of life that what we learn from the environment since birth, which include place (nationality), native language, culture, religion, customs, education and studying, etc. these become deeply rooted in our minds as the bases and direct vectors for our thoughts and behavior. A well known proverb that explains this, [Early learning is engraved as on stone (in my translation from Arabic)]. So if a child in her/his early learning years is repeatedly told correct, incorrect, or disguised facts directly or indirectly they will innocently memorize these and will learn them as real facts - even if for the adult these are judged unlikely extremes of pure imagination.

    For the adult scientists, some scientific theories hold true because they were later proven or later tweaked by the addition of real new scientific knowledge, likewise other theories were later no more scientifically acceptable, BUT if some start to believe a theory is the only absolute truth and zealously fight for it when it cannot anymore hold true scientifically due to its obvious fallacies, it becomes a belief that now takes an obvious religious turn, we may also call it a type of sacred obsession, like a taboo.

    Why is it that a theory that in numerous ways was proven to be actually really non scientific AND that deeply roots in our minds serious spiritual doubts against the Word of God is so intensely forced on us as being the only possible absolute truth explaining our origin?

  • The difference between you two is the implications of the theory are clearly different in the way you understand, conceive, or interpret the theory. Both of you are reacting to what you believe the theory of evolution entails. Perhaps, Cevac believes in "Theistic evolution" or "Special Theory of Evolution" in which each kind is created and evolved to make its own forms. Perhaps, the first primitive cell, Cephas believes was created. Perhaps, where Naturalistic Scientists or Existentialists believe blind forces are at work, Cephas attributes to mechanisms that God has fore-ordained.
    You might be rejecting the things Cephas rejects in what is purported in the theory.
  • Dear clay we are here to seek COC knowledge and communicate what help edify each other, but I cannot read any person's inner thoughts. Like you suggest: perhaps. I went through different  phases of logic too and much more (while not proud to say it: to extremes of logic).

    I studied plant and animal cytology, it is impossible to state that a virus or a phage ("simpler" forms) evolved into a bacterium or into an animal cell (more complex forms), be it unicellular, living in colonies or as multicellular organisms.

    What (I meant Who) could program the first RNAs and DNAs' so intelligently, these are so different and extremely complex orderly sequences of genetic information, was it one or more of the complex proteins to be later on manufactured (and the latter had to agree and plan all the designs together)?

    This is not a science forum, but allow me to cite here simple facts of scientific logic that are directly against the evolution theory, for example: God tells us He created light and water before He created the sun, he also created plants before fish and other creatures; so the green plants could use the available light in their hi tech intracellular chlorophyll organic ovens or factories to produce their own food to feed, grow up, the ones that could yield fruits to yield fruits and all to reproduce (or become extinct) - and without the need to have the slightest idea of how all processes could happen! K Hovind reminds that plants could get the sunlight the very next day after their creation, which is OK.

    Another one, these green plants needed water (created already), had to take up carbon dioxide and produced oxygen as by product of their light synthesis processes. This oxygen is a requirement for all fish with gills to survive in the oceans so oxygen had to be dissolved in water first and be continuously renewed in sufficient concentration for the survival of these fish. It means aquatic plants had to be there first (before the fish). Simple scientific logic does it, these two facts are picked from a huge list.

    I know we would all agree with the idea that God Almighty could have created the whole universe in a fraction of a second had He decided to do so. God does not need billions of years to create, right? He tells us He decided it was very good to create everything in six days and He decided to create light (not just the angels but also visible light) before the sun. God also decided to create the earth then after it the sun, marine then flying living creatures on the same day, that's a day before the creation of creatures that live on land. Glory be to God forever.

    Why God made everything in six days? I believe for us to understand He has the Wisdom and the Power, that He exercised the ultimate Care so that everything was very good, an environment prepared in such beautiful equilibrium and ready for mankind to live in, to enjoy, to look around and understand how great is His Love, to naturally remember Him every moment and thank Him for His Graces.

  • Dear taymourlang,

    Thank you for all the links I got some of them in nice high quality. Interestingly, in all his sermons and answers Dr Kent Hovind uses the scientific method to reach most (if not all) of the conclusions that successfully refute the theory of evolution. You know I recently heard he is sentenced to ten years of prison and his wife was sentenced to two years of prison. It looks "they" had to eliminate him from their way or shut him in a manner acceptable to his audience: he disclosed many bad things that go along with the theory of evolution. I really hope both will be released soon. I will pray the Lord to help him and his family.

    It is very alarming they changed B.C. to B.C.E. in many science textbooks.

    sorry i dont understand what u mean

    You can find many in Youtube clips and web sites -  more than a hundred against Hovind.

Sign In or Register to comment.