The New Covenant is the bond between God and man, established by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, under which all who have been effectively called to God in all ages have been formed into the one body of Christ in New Testament times, in order to come under His law during this age and to remain under His authority forever.
Tom Wells

Fact And Theory Debate

Fact And Theory Debate

Fact And Theory

Message number 1417 in “Biogenesis Echo” Date: 02-16-91 17:02
From: David Stoddard
To: All
Subj: Creationists reply

In summation, if evolution is a “fact of science” and science is unable to conclusively prove beyound a shadow of doubt the results of such abundances of resources, it would seem apparent that science is not factual; but is, more rather, biased towards it’s own interests. ———————- Let’s continue the discussion

>… THEY will agree with my analysis of what constitutes “fact” in science, what constitutes “theory” in science, ….<

I would contest your supposition that creationist scientists accept the premise that “theory” and “fact” can be considered equally significant. I do, however, accept the premise that the majority of degreed, institutionally accredited, scientists are of the `evolutionary’ presuasion; NOT because it has anything to do with factually unbiased influence.

What has happened is that this concept of evolution has INTRUDED itself into every area of life; all social science and humanities and even the religious entities of faith; case in point “The master idea, which animated alike the initiator of socialogy and his chief continuator, was that of evolution…..” Encycopedia Britannica, Vo. 20, (University of Chicago Press, 1949), p. 912.

Few institutions of learning allow acceptance and accreditation in the vast fields of science without the unquestionable acceptance of the evolution precept.

>… THEY will agree with my analysis of what constitutes “fact” in science, what constitutes “theory” in science, ….<

—Yes, and other anti-creationists [also, of needs in logic, be anti-Christian], put the gun of insistance to their minds that they must follow the leading of an imposed idea or rejection is the subtle obvious, and you do have your concurring audience. ———

“Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution. …

There was no sudden moment during evolutionary history when `spirit’ was instilled into life, any more than there was a single moment when it was instilled into you….I think we can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process.”01

My `personal’ opinion/belief as expounded on earlier is that there can be only two possibilities to premise existance upon. What is is because of the spark of organic life beinging generated and furthered through natural selection or the creative impluse of a supernatural being established a design of personal desire. {cont. next}

NOTE, this is part one of six present parts……….. et al

In this great cosmos of our existance it can summarily be projected that we are like a child in the closet of our existance without any memory beyound being in that closet called earth; the earth compared to the universe is like a closet compared to the world. All the speculations for being an existance, aware and alive, in a closet can be rendered to life on earth.

We make decisions on which to base our understandings of observations. The primary view accepted is that a `study of our existance and surroundings can explain the cause of the existance.’

One must, therefore, either start with the assumption that God is the Creator and the Author of history, or else with the closet assumption that there is no God and that the history of the earth and the universe is to be explained exceptionally. If there were no writings of testimony to the supernatural (Bible writings), God could be, summarily, disavowed; handily rejected as without even a basis in speculation.

Before beginning to conjecture existance, the inclination of an assumption must be presumed; either the supernatural has effected the natural or there is absolutely no supernatural beyound personal imaginings. These thoughts must be addressed and formulated into any perspective of idealisms for an honest accessment of views to be understood.

Each of us must, therefore, either start with the assumption that God is the Creator and the Author of history, or else with the assumption that there is no God and that the history of the earth and the universe is to be explained without any intelligence superior to man’s. If there were actually no God there would be no intelligence claiming to have been involved in the developement of living organisms and the inductive reasoning approach would be valid in accepting the premise of atheism.

Because there is abounding evidences to the affect that there is an entity which claims to have been fully present during this period in history we are obligated to enact deductive reasoning to evaluated it’s substaniation. Where there are no claims to foreknowledge about a matter we are allowed to utilize other means to induce an opinion.

Just as in studies of legal matters the inductive reasoning drawn out of the investigation of the evidences are the only means of ascertaining the facts, provided there are no personal witnesses; whose testimony must be fully addressed and deduced.

The obvious, honest, conclusion for evaluating existance, whether of creationism or evolution, is the deductive approach. This means that the witness presented from Judeo-christian sources must be investigated to a conclusive substantiation. God is either a true witness and expositor of all the knowledge or a false witness.

The next point of concern is what is often termed the `fence stragglers’ who want to claim both camps of beliefs; the evolutionist christian.

These are the people who reject the premise that God and creationism and the evolutionary precept are totally opposing views. They compound the dispute by introducing a third belief. They agree that there is the one people who are fundamentally creationists. These believe that God is a personal entity who created by his creative ability.

They agree that there is the one people who are fundamentally atheists. These believe that there is not, nor ever was any describable entity that could be called God. These evolutionist christians are of the opinion that God is real and that he uses the method called evolution to develope his creative purpose. Their belief is that one that has the most obvious flaws towards any systematic reasoning. The attempt to present God and evolution together is against all the odds of Judeo-Christian religions and science. This begins a lenghty, involved, disputation:

“Evolution is a one-way process, irrevesible in time, producing apparent novelties and greater variety, and leading to higher degrees of organization, more differentiated, more complex, but at the same time more integrated.”02

This tells that evolution is an ongoing process of developement, that organic and inorganic substances are progressively changing into greater complexites.

The Bible is emphatic in representing that God caused all these aspects, characteristic of evolution, to have occurred only during the creation week. Genesis 2:1-3 emphasizes that God “ended” and “finished” that process and “rested”. Exodus 20:11 demonstrates that God did, in six days, make all things and “all that in them is” were made completely done and perfected before the rest from creating.

(Ex. 31:17 corroborates a six day creation and a seventh day rest. Psalm 33:6, 9 tell the method of creating. Nehemiah 9:6 and 2 Peter 3:5 further impress that `creating’ was “done”, “made”, “hast made”, “stood fast”. There are no indications that time was needed to complete the making or that some cycle of developing was only begun: “The works were finished from the foundation of the world”(Hebrews 4:3). “For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Hebrews 4:10).

The emphasis brought out of the Bible is that creation was completed and terminated at the end of six days and that God is now preserving all that he created. Nothing more is being created nor destroyed. This truism agrees with the most basic and universal law of conservation. “The First Law of Thermodynamics is merely another name for the Law of Conservation of Energy…. This law states that energy can be transformed in various ways, but can neither be created nor destroyed.”03

This understanding makes evident that this universal law squarely contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis. That any concept of an ongoing “creation” of increasing organization and integration and developement, is not taking place.