Re: What kind of relationship is there between creation and science ?
- From: "OscartheGrouch" <Tondaleo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:08:21 -0700
Will you please move on to another newsgroup dude? We're just trying to talk
about bugs here and this is not the forum for your rhetoric. I'm sure there
are other newsgroups where you would feel right at home and others would
love to have you.
By the way, I'm a little troubled by your web page too with all your
pictures of yourself all over the front page. What's up with that?
"harunyahya" <harunyahya2011@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126801633.990591.186210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What kind of relationship is there between creation and science ?
HARUN YAHYA
www.harunyahya.com
As we have shown in all the questions we have considered so far, the
theory of evolution is completely at odds with scientific discoveries.
This theory, born of the primitive level of science in the nineteenth
century, has been completely invalidated by successive scientific
discoveries.
Those evolutionists who are blindly devoted to the theory look for a
solution in demagogy, since no scientific foundation is left to them.
The most frequently resorted to of these is the clichéd slogan that
"creation is a faith, so it cannot be considered part of science." The
claim goes that evolution is a scientific theory, whereas creation is
just a belief. However, this repetition of "evolution is science,
creation is a belief" stems from a totally erroneous perspective. Those
who keep repeating that are confusing science and materialist
philosophy. They believe that science must remain within the borders of
materialism, and that those who are not materialist have no right to
make any statements at all. However, science itself completely rejects
materialism.
Studying matter is not the same as being a materialist
Let us first briefly define materialism in order to examine the matter
in more detail. Materialism is a philosophy that has existed since
Ancient Greece and is based on the idea that matter is all that exists.
According to materialist philosophy, matter has always existed and will
continue to do so for all time. Nothing exists apart from matter. This
is not a scientific claim, however, because it cannot be subjected to
experiment and observation. It is simply a belief, a dogma.
However, this dogma became mixed up with science in the nineteenth
century, and even came to be the basic foundation of science. Yet
science is not compelled to accept materialism. Science studies nature
and the universe, and produces results without being limited by any
philosophical classification.
In the face of this, some materialists frequently take refuge in a
simple word game. They say, "Matter is the only subject of study for
science, so it has to be materialist." Yes, science only studies
matter, but "studying matter" is very different from "being a
materialist." That is because when we study matter, we realise that
matter contains knowledge and design so great that they could never
have been produced by matter itself. We can understand that this
knowledge and design are the result of an intelligence, even if we
cannot see it directly.
For instance, let us imagine a cave. We do not know if anyone has been
in it before us. If, when we enter this cave, there is nothing in it
but dust, earth, and stones, we can infer that there is nothing but
randomly distributed matter there. However, if there are expertly
produced pictures in stunning colours on the walls, we may assume that
an intelligent entity has been there before us. We may not be able to
see that entity directly, but we can infer its existence from what it
produces.
Science studies nature in the same way as shown in that example. If all
the design in nature could only be explained by material factors, then
science could confirm materialism. However, modern science has revealed
that there is design in nature that cannot be explained by material
factors, and that all matter contains a design brought into being by a
Creator.
For example, all experiments and observation prove that matter could
not by itself have given rise to life, for which reason life must stem
from a metaphysical creation. All evolutionist experiments in this
direction have ended in failure. Life can never have been created from
inanimate matter. The evolutionist biologist Andrew Scott makes the
following admission on the subject in the well-known journal New
Scientist:
Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern
version of Genesis. The "fundamental" forces of gravity,
electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to
have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly
established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the
mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to
the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or
complete bewilderment.
The root of life is based on speculation and debate because materialist
dogma insists that life is the product of matter. Yet the scientific
facts show that matter has no such power. Professor Fred Hoyle, an
astronomer and mathematician who was knighted for his contributions to
science, makes the following comment on the subject:
If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic
systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the
laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent
the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological
nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please,
and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the
experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes
[proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will
give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of
actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except
possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple
organic chemicals.
Actually, materialism is in an even worse dilemma. Matter cannot even
form life when combined with human knowledge and time, let alone form
it by itself.
The truth that we have briefly glanced at is the truth that matter
cannot form design and knowledge by itself. Yet the universe and the
living things in it contain extraordinarily complex design and
knowledge. That shows us that this design and knowledge in the universe
and living things are the works of a Creator Who possesses infinite
power and knowledge, Who existed before matter and rules it.
If we look carefully, this is an entirely scientific conclusion. It is
not a "belief," but a truth acquired through observation of the
universe and living things in it. That is why the evolutionists' claim
that "Evolution is scientific, whereas creation is a belief that cannot
enter the domain of science" is a superficial deception. It is true
that in the nineteenth century materialism was confused with science,
and that science was led off course by materialist dogma. However,
subsequent developments in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries
have completely overthrown that hoary old belief, and the truth of
creation, that had been concealed by materialism, has finally emerged.
As the banner headline "Science Finds God," used by the famous magazine
Newsweek in its historic July 27, 1998, edition makes clear, behind all
the materialist deception, science finds God, the Creator of the
universe and all that is in it.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Bizzare Cricket??
- Next by Date: Re: What kind of relationship is there between creation and science ?
- Previous by thread: Bizzare Cricket??
- Next by thread: Re: What kind of relationship is there between creation and science ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
