Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists
0
"Most lay people think that theories are guesses or hunches or something that you don't have to take terribly seriously, it's not such a big deal... Completely opposite in Science. What a lot of (unfortunately) text books lead people to misunderstand is that a really good theory grows up into a law, as if theories are refined and then become laws and laws are somehow more important than theories. This is a source of a lot of confusion. When scientists talk about fact - they're talking about confirmed observations. And facts are interesting, but... they're not terribly exciting. They don't do a whole lot for you. Facts are a dime a dozen. There's facts all over the place. Theories are the most important things in science. Theory, to a scientist, means explanation and these are logical constructs of facts, of tested hypothesis, of laws, of all kinds of stuff... that taken together and put in a logical descriptive fashion - help us understand some kind of natural phenomenon."
From the YouTube video, entitled: Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists
Ok, let's listen to the scientists:
Theories are the most important things in science.
Theory, to a scientist, means explanation.
Explanations are logical constructs of the facts (things tested and observed in our natural world today).
So, if I look at the facts, I should logically conclude that there is no God and that the earth is millions of years old and that we evolved from nothing? I can't prove either one... I can't "prove" that there is a God who created everything and I can't "prove" that everything evolved from nothing over millions of years. But, if I'm understanding correctly, one of these 2 conclusions is the better "explanation", based on the facts, and it's clearly the second option which is evolution and millions of years.
I have a "theory/explanation" that God created all things, and I can look at the "facts" which would be... well, everything around me.... and TRY to conclude that there was an intelligent designer. But if I do that... I'm doing something wrong because science is observing the natural world and giving a LOGICAL answer and I'm giving an illogical answer because I'm using the "supernatural" to explain the "natural". God can't be a part of the "natural" world because we can't observe and test Him, therefore He's not a fact (to scientists). So what I should do instead is make up an answer which includes elements of the "natural" world and it doesn't matter if I can't prove it, as long as I'm using the "natural" to explain the "natural" - then it's acceptable.
Ok, I think I get it.
Theories are the most important things to scientists as long as your "theory" doesn't include God.Oh, and by the way... their theory is a fact, although a theory is an explanation based on the facts. But their theory REALLY is a fact. Don't believe me? Just ask 'em. They'll tell ya. If anything, you'll get a "The evidence is undeniable." answer. Then, if you're a Christian, you'll want to say: "I agree!" only you'll be thinking about how it's undeniable that God created all things.
Psalms 14:1 (NKJV)
1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.
Romans 1:16-25 (NKJV)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
From the YouTube video, entitled: Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists
Ok, let's listen to the scientists:
Theories are the most important things in science.
Theory, to a scientist, means explanation.
Explanations are logical constructs of the facts (things tested and observed in our natural world today).
So, if I look at the facts, I should logically conclude that there is no God and that the earth is millions of years old and that we evolved from nothing? I can't prove either one... I can't "prove" that there is a God who created everything and I can't "prove" that everything evolved from nothing over millions of years. But, if I'm understanding correctly, one of these 2 conclusions is the better "explanation", based on the facts, and it's clearly the second option which is evolution and millions of years.
I have a "theory/explanation" that God created all things, and I can look at the "facts" which would be... well, everything around me.... and TRY to conclude that there was an intelligent designer. But if I do that... I'm doing something wrong because science is observing the natural world and giving a LOGICAL answer and I'm giving an illogical answer because I'm using the "supernatural" to explain the "natural". God can't be a part of the "natural" world because we can't observe and test Him, therefore He's not a fact (to scientists). So what I should do instead is make up an answer which includes elements of the "natural" world and it doesn't matter if I can't prove it, as long as I'm using the "natural" to explain the "natural" - then it's acceptable.
Ok, I think I get it.
Theories are the most important things to scientists as long as your "theory" doesn't include God.Oh, and by the way... their theory is a fact, although a theory is an explanation based on the facts. But their theory REALLY is a fact. Don't believe me? Just ask 'em. They'll tell ya. If anything, you'll get a "The evidence is undeniable." answer. Then, if you're a Christian, you'll want to say: "I agree!" only you'll be thinking about how it's undeniable that God created all things.
Psalms 14:1 (NKJV)
1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.
Romans 1:16-25 (NKJV)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
About the author
Donec non enim in turpis pulvinar facilisis. Ut felis. Praesent dapibus, neque id cursus faucibus. Aenean fermentum, eget tincidunt.
0 comments: