|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Argument from Reaction | ||||||||||||||
| Since grade school, we have been taught that any object in motion, or which was but is no longer in motion, is still and ceased to be on account of a lack of motivation (incline, thrust or pull). However, as we grew older (and idealogy entered the picture), we were told to believe something (which is counter to what we had been taught) without question. If these same authorities who had taught us the former are now telling us to discount it, why should we listen to anything else they have to 'teach' us? I have an empty water glass on a stable table here in front of me. Without the aid of motion, what are the chances that it will move? | ||||||||||||||
| Many modern evolutionary scientists try to distance the theory of evolution from the big bang theory for fear that the undesirable "luggage" of the latter would place a negative 'drag' on the acceptance of the former. However, I believe that neither can be separated from one another. The reason for this is that evolution divorced from a purely naturalistic origin (evolution is a hypothesis of development not origins), leaves one with an agnostic sense of deistic origins. Naturalistic origins theories include not only from our own environment but also from foreign sources (Directed Panspermia). If evolution is maintained, one is left with the metaphysical naturalism and its assumption of the eternality/infinity of matter/energy. However, as this is scientifically unverifiable, unrepeatable & unobservable, it also cannot be logically maintained. It is a metaphysical postulate, one which science is neither equiped nor able to address/verify/confirm. | ||||||||||||||
| With the theistically-inclined person in mind, some scientists have intentionally left the identity of the agent behind evolution open, allowing for a theistic interpretation. While some scientists believe that by leaving an 'accomidating' gap for the person of faith (which is often considered subjective as it thought to be no more than a harmless mental/emotional placebo that makes no substantial contribution to scientific inquiry), others seek to reinterpret the methodology of scientific inquiry so as to reflect (read into it) the tenets of their metaphysical naturalism. Rather than leaving this issue open to "freedom of choice/inquiry" such individuals appeal to many logical fallacies such as emotional appeals such as when one paints individuals as enemies of free thought/progress because he/she chooses not to accept their particular viewpoint, or that he/she is less that honest/noble if he/she dares to share their viewpoint with others. For example, the Clinton administration moved to enact the Rico act, (a racqueteering charge devised to use against gangsters and underworld figures) against individuals who chose to publically express an opinion regarding abortion that was both opposed and unpopular with the administration and its constituencies. Other tactics include attacking the person rather than the idea they advocate (ad hominem) or having celebrities spout their political advocacy from the gossip pages, as if they are experts on that topic. One of the most-used & still most effective logical fallacy is the Straw man. If we entertain special creation, or even give equal time (check the verdict from the Scopes trial) we will revert back to believing the Flat Earth, scientific progress will not only be halted but reversed, artistic creativity will be surpressed, etc. Compare the Scopes trial (1925) with Mclean v. Arkansas, the so-called Scopes II . The courts ruled in the former that there was supposed to be equal coverage. In the latter, it was to exclude equal coverage (which had been restored in Act 590 earlier that year). This move to exclude a particular alternative is in violation of the federal supreme court decision of Epperson.v Arkansas (1968). | ||||||||||||||
| If 'scientific' creationism isn't just a back door for religious creationism, why must the original creator be personal? First, I want to differentiate between scientific creationism and Intelligent Design. While the former has been a valuable watchdog against sloppy and arrogant claims of the naturalistic community, it unfortunately is too eager to fill in the gap of the cosmological necessity with the God of the Bible. Regardless of whether its final conclusions may not be wrong, its eagerness often betrays a theological justification. While the message of Scientific Creationism is to remind us of our Creator's supremacy and that He is worthy to be honored, the emphasis of science is to examine and try to understand better the intricate complexities and detail that nature reveals to us. Scientific Creationism has been, for too long, overextending itself by responding to the objections of naturalism. It has, for too long, been on the defensive against the naturalistic bully. It has, sadly, done too little regarding positive science until the I.D. movement (Intelligent Design) came along. I must point out that not all creationist necessarily hold to a literal 6 24-hour day creation period that is only the Young Earth creationists. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 refers to an undeterminate period of time. Does that leave the door open for the Theistic Evolutionist to tack on his notion of a vague theistic (deistic) origin to the beginning of the big bang/evolutionary (naturalistic) model? In short, No. Theistic Evolutionism is neither evolution nor creationism, but is an attempt at an accomidation of opposing cosmologies. Although one may not acknowledge the God of the Bible as the sole initial singularity who gives cause to all that is, one must realize the narrow-sightedness & intentional suppression by those who would deny that all life came from an uncaused source, and is prompted and motivated by nothing, and toward nothing. To accept the theory of intelligent design does not mean that one has automatically jumped into bed with creationists, it only means that one has examined various cosmological hypotheses and has arrived at the conclusion after all others have been ruled as mere mythological speculation (like the Egyptian creation myth that the earth is an eminational product of a sexual union between Orisis & Isis), scientifically unverifiable (such as Neo-Darwinian macroevolution with its necessity for violations of abiogenesis, mass action, Thermodynamics, Intertia, etc) or impossible. | ||||||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||||