Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Intellegent Design vs. Darwinism

Posted by truthtalklive on January 22, 2008

Todays Guest host is Allen Hunt (www.theallenhuntshow.com) he is interviewing Dr. Johnathan Wells on the issue of intelligent design. for more Information on Dr. Wells visit www.thedesignoflife.net/authors.asp

To call in please use Allen’s number at 1-877-70-ALLEN

Advertisements

21 Responses to “Intellegent Design vs. Darwinism”

  1. John said

    It seemed odd to me that nobody on the show today seemed to mind that todays guest is a Moonie. A MOONIE!
    This is a very harmful cult.The cult’s founder, Sun Myung Moon, thinks that he is God. Not a God, but YOUR God. That said, guess who Johnathan Wells thinks the intelligent designer is?

    How many here would follow this theory if the intelligent designer was of non-Christian origins, or even non theistic,like….. aliens, for example? Not many, I’ll bet.Your thoughts?

  2. MonkeyMan said

    Didn’t get to hear the show, but if what John says about this guy being a Moonie, then “no” I would not accept his theory concerning I.D.

    But see, that is what distinguishes young-earth Biblical creationists from even the I.D. movement. I.D.’ers just state that there is a possibility for a designer, they usually aren’t dogmatic as to who or what the designer may or may not be.

  3. Chris C. said

    MonkeyMan:

    ID’ers don’t just state the possibility of a designer: their theory relies on it. They claim life on earth would have been impossible without the hand a designer. Its the basis of the theory, and ultimately, why ID can never be considered science.

    Im not going to contend its technically an invalid opinion (although I don’t hold to it), but it is scientiically untenable. It makes no empirically testable, verifiable claims. It may well deserve a place in a comparative religion class, but not in biology.

  4. Fred said

    Irony! A cultist sought out for supporting views by a fundamentalist radio show!

    Check this out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon

    I say that Christian fundamentalists’ main interest in “science” is in how they can use it to get Biblical Creationism into the public schools.

  5. Fred said

    Dear Mr. Wells, I hope you’ll pardon me for referring to you as a cultist. It really was an unfortunate choice of words on my part as I have no opinion of cults other than to make use of the the fundamentalist terminology. It was not my intention to belittle your religion.

    Fred

  6. CarGuy37 said

    After listening to the show, I was excited to hear about how the spectrum (and density) of believers in the different disciplines of science has played out (more physicists and mathematicians versus biologists).

    One thing really struck a chord with me, and that was Allen’s surprise/disbelieve that ~45% of Christians are “young earth”. I personally am surprised that this number isn’t higher.

    Here is my short, logical, three pronged argument for my belief in the “young earth”:
    1) God said so (there should be no confusion on what “yom” means in Hebrew)
    2) We have the genealogy from Christ to Adam (unless God is a liar)
    3) Death before sin is a heresy (nowhere in Scripture are plants ever referred to as living or dying)

    And to say that “science has showed us that dating methods prove otherwise” is a misinformed, prejudicial regurgitation of evolutionary propaganda. How come the dating of a living seal revealed an age of 1700 years? Or the dating of a 200 year old igneous rock (from a recent, documented volcanic eruption) is reported to be between 150 to 800 million years old? It is well established that dating methods are only accepted as long as the returned value correlates strongly to the expected value; otherwise, they are rejected. This is plain bad science.

    It is also quite evident that dinosaurs lived with man. Just as there are nearly 200 stories worldwide of a catastrophic flood, there are an exorbitantly higher number of stories of dragons, leviathans and the sort. This also ignores the well documented sightings Plesiasauruses in Africa, and fossilized footprints of men with dinosaurs side by side.

    We have no reason to doubt God and His Word. He is the source of all knowledge and invented science so there should be no fear of the two ever contradicting one another.

    There a number of wonderful ministries that have worked hard to show the error of the “old earth” model, and quite frankly (as if to imply I haven’t already been frank) once you believe that God did what He said He did, it’s a relief. Just yesterday someone asked me, “did those people of the Old Testament really live that long?” I responded emphatically, “Absolutely! We were supposed to live forever; but we sinned and brought death into the world. They lived so long because they had such a good start.”

    And just for reference, I’m a Christian with a degree in Electrical Engineering so I hope I’m never accused of believing with my heart before my brain…

  7. Brother Malachi said

    the well documented sightings Plesiasauruses in Africa,

    Yeah, not to mention the well-documented sightings of Bigfoot.

    How come the dating of a living seal revealed an age of 1700 years? Or the dating of a 200 year old igneous rock (from a recent, documented volcanic eruption) is reported to be between 150 to 800 million years old? It is well established that dating methods are only accepted as long as the returned value correlates strongly to the expected value;

    References please.

  8. CarGuy37 said

    Hey Brother Malachi,

    I appreciate the skepticism, it’s healthy. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that the gist of my initial post was to encourage “young earth” Christians and stimulate proactive investigation from “old earth” Christians, not to defend wholly my position.

    If I say that the weather outside is bad and that I saw a red car in the ditch on the way to work, one can either infer that the road conditions are bad or inquire as to what was the license plate number.

    I’m sorry that I don’t have the references off the top of my head.

  9. Brother Malachi said

    I’m sorry that I don’t have the references off the top of my head.

    That’s fine. I’ll wait.

  10. CarGuy37 said

    I was wrong about the date of the seal; he was carbon dated to be 1,300 years old. [Antarctic Journal Vol 6 Sept-Oct, 1971 p.221]

    There’s an article in Science that dated a living snail at 27,000 years old. [Science Vol 224 1984 p.58-61]

    I couldn’t find the exact reference for the igneous rock dating, but this links seems to corroborate.

    An excellent book on dating methods and possible points of error is The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.

    And I found a good quote:
    “If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.” [T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden), “C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology”, :Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970, p.35]

    I recommend these sites:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/
    http://www.drdino.com/
    http://www.evolution-facts.org/

    I hope this helps, encourages and edifies. God bless!

  11. JT said

    Chris C. said: “ID’ers don’t just state the possibility of a designer: their theory relies on it. They claim life on earth would have been impossible without the hand a designer. Its the basis of the theory, and ultimately, why ID can never be considered science.”

    More specifically, ID claims that certain biochemical systems display complex specified information and that the nature of this information is such that it could not reasonable be said to have come about by any combination of chance and natural laws, therefore it can reasonably be infered to have been designed. It is essentially an argument about the nature of biological information as information. To say, then, that it is not science means that you reject the applicability of this mathematical analysis to biological systems (which to me seems arbitrary). I would agree that the margin of ID as science is very narrow and that, if not kept within informational categories, it quickly becomes a discussion of metaphysics or theology. Nevertheless, it does seem to be scientific in this narrow way.

    CarGuy37 said: “Here is my short, logical, three pronged argument for my belief in the “young earth”:
    1) God said so (there should be no confusion on what “yom” means in Hebrew)
    2) We have the genealogy from Christ to Adam (unless God is a liar)
    3) Death before sin is a heresy (nowhere in Scripture are plants ever referred to as living or dying)”

    Point #1: only follows if Genesis chapter one is to be taken literally, if the context is non-literal then the particular word for ‘day’ need not be take literally either.
    Point #2: Hebrew genealogies are not necessarily exhaustive, they may be edited in order to highlight feature about the charater in question. For example, one can construct different genealogies for Jesus, one going back to Abraham that indicates his relationship to Judaism, and one going back to Adam that indicates his relationship to all mankind. The construction of the geneaology follows from the literary intent. If the same is true for the geneaologies in Genesis then they may not be exhaustive either.
    Point #3: This is vaild only if by Death one means spiritual death, which only follows after sin. But it is not necessarily heretical to hold that phyiscal death (of animals) could have pre-dated the Fall.

    Conclusion: There are other valid interpretations of Creation that take the Bible as God’s word seriously and are not Young Earth. Creation is peripheral to salvation and dogmatism on peripheral issues is antithetical to Christian charity and humility.

  12. CarGuy37 said

    “Creation is peripheral to salvation and dogmatism on peripheral issues is antithetical to Christian charity and humility.”

    I couldn’t agree more.

  13. Fred said

    JT, do you agree with CarGuy37 that dinosaurs coexisted, or that they do coexist today with human beings?

    I say he is being pretentious.

  14. Mike S said

    I know a few… Dinosaurs that is. 🙂 Most of them are “Flaming Liberal Wackos” though! 🙂

  15. John said

    Fred, only as birds do the dinosaurs coexist with mankind.
    But I love the idea that I’m wrong, somehow.

  16. JT said

    Fred:
    No, I do not believe that humans and dinosaurs ever coexisted. I also see no good reason to be especially skeptical about the age of the earth as geologists understand it (around 4.5 billion years) or standard big bang cosmology that dates the universe from 13-16 billion years. To deny these positions one has to apply selective skepticism to the naturalistic methods that science relies upon.

  17. Fred said

    CarGuy37 probably spent two or three minutes looking up those “facts” on his creationist websites. I say that because it only took me two or three minutes to find science websites that explain or debunk them.

    If you’re interested:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R3

    here’s a reference to the source of your “igneous rock dating” and
    the refutation of your (Clementson’s?) claim:

    http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/U-Th_dating_gives_inaccurate_results_for_modern_volcanic_rocks

    Hope this helps, but I doubt it will.

  18. John said

    Thank you Fred!

  19. John said

    Those are great sites, the last one is my favorite.My favorite part was reading about the Dinosaurs.
    Check it out sometime, MonkeyMan.

  20. Maz Herman said

    Hi Guys! To me, if the Creation in Genesis is not literal (YOM meaning a single 24hr day when written with ordinal numbers and ‘evening and morning’) how can you tell what is and isn’t literal?
    Genesis is full of history. Was Adam not real? Or Eve? Cain and Abel? And Shem from who the Jewish people descended through Abraham. Where does fiction end and history begin then? I know the answer but I’m asking you? To me the Creation is all fact from Genesis 1 v 1.
    Genesis is the foundation of Christian Faith. If there was no Adam and Eve who sinned then none of us are sinners. Jesus didn’t have to come and die for us and we are all not guilty.
    Sorry folks but we are all sinners needing a Savior.

  21. The technological progress doesn’t stand on one place, it is going far and far.
    However in wide open areas it is very easy to use and very powerful.

    So I put it back in the car and took it back to the small engine repair center, and, guess
    what, that “blanked-y-blank engine started up immediately.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: