Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 7 results found
A frequent response to the evidence against the origin of life by Darwinian evolution is, “All the difficulties with the evolution of life only apply to life as we know it. But what about other kinds of life?”
If Darwinism is true, then there is no purpose or meaning to life, there is no morality, there's no qualitative difference between humans and animals, there's no life after death, and there's no purpose to human history. Now, are you trying to tell me that it doesn't really matter if people believe we evolved or not?
Those who hold that science, by nature, cannot be integrated with theological views about the nature of the world, are out of step with a long history of science. This arbitrary, modern division between science and theology, making them enemies, was not made in the past. Most of the founders of modern scientific disciplines were Christians whose world-view was thoroughly integrated with their scientific practice. For example:
Has anyone else but me noticed an inherent contradiction in the underlying convictions that drive annual “Earth Day” celebrations? The vast majority of those who attend such fetes are Darwinists who believe humans have a moral obligation to protect the environment? My question is: Why?
It doesn’t seem to make sense to say you once were a sperm or an egg. Does it make sense, though, to talk about yourself before you were born? Did you turn in your mother’s womb or kick when you were startled by a loud noise? Did you suck your thumb? Were those your experiences or someone else’s? If you were once the unborn child your mother carried, then you have to accept an undeniable truth: killing that child through abortion would have killed you. Not a potential you. Not a possible you. Not a future you. Abortion would have killed you.
There are at least three things wrong with the idea that they don't. The view that science and religion don’t mix is guilty of at least three logical errors. First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models have some evidential support. For example, we see the blending of science and religion in the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology as the beginning of the universe.
When a person asks me a question, I've found it helpful to try to frame my response in the context of his own discipline or profession. For example, when an attorney tells me he won't believe in the soul because it can't be measured physically, I ask him how can he prove in court that a non-physical thing like a motive exists if a motive can't be measured physically. Even laws themselves are not physical. They can't be weighed; they have no chemical composition; they aren't located in space. The attorney must face the fact that his own methodology defeats his objection.