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 fore-
knowledge 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.