Skip to main content

Evolutionists deny the obvious

LACE recently addressed the issue of intellectual hamstringing -- the claim by evolutionists that creationism and Intelligent Design are devoid of serious thought. Indeed, evolutionists claim that their endeavors comprise the only "real science" being practiced. But what is science? What is the real nature of scientific inquiry?

Science, in LACE's view, is the study of God's creation -- or, to put it in terms more palatable to our evolutionist friends, the study of the natural world. Science, at its purest, entails one simple thing: observing and reporting those things about the natural world that are verifiable fact. Commenting on inferences that should be obvious to people of sound common sense is acceptable, but extensive interpretation should be left out of the equation. And this is where evolutionists, as a general rule, go astray.


A striking example presented itself recently. Let's say someone's walking along and comes across a tree, and under the tree is a large branch on the ground. Common sense suggests the branch fell from the tree it's lying under, not from some other tree, and a quick scan of the tree confirms this: at some point on the tree is a bare spot where, clearly, a branch used to be attached. But how did the branch get separated from the tree? Two possibilities: the branch was broken off by natural forces (wind, for example, or old age), or someone came along and cut the branch off.


How can you tell which it is? You look at where the break occurred: If the break is rough and jagged, it's likely that, even though a person could have snapped the branch off, it was probably the result of natural causes. If, however, the break is smooth and even, it's obvious that someone cut it off.


When it comes to creation vs. evolution, however, evolutionists look at the clean-cut branch and deny the involvement of any outside intelligence. Sounds absurd when put in the context of that particular example, but this is what they do, and this is what they really believe ... or at least it's what they want to believe. It's also what they want you and LACE and everyone else to believe, and what they want to force on our children, particularly in school.


All of this, of course, goes against the spirit, methods and principles of real science. Scientists should simply be relating to the public those things that are observable, verifiable facts and, outside of common-sense inferences, leaving their interpretations out of it. Instead, they deny the obvious, the common-sense (which is bad enough), then throw their self-serving, "I wish God didn't exist" wish-fulfilling ideas in their place.

Comments

  • Bloodyviking 4 years ago

    You claim a clean cut but you failed to present a single example. Science, on the other hand has myriad examples of the jagged edges consistent with evolution.

  • Nick 4 years ago

    >>>"When it comes to creation vs. evolution, however, evolutionists look at the clean-cut branch and deny the involvement of any outside intelligence. Sounds absurd when put in the context of that particular example, but this is what they do, and this is what they really believe ... or at least it's what they want to believe. It's also what they want you and LACE and everyone else to believe, and what they want to force on our children, particularly in school."

    Actually no, evolution does NOT equate to atheism. This is why evolution is also accepted by many many religious people who also believe in God. So you're arguing against a straw-man.

    What YOU have to do is (scientifically) demonstrate that an intelligence WAS involved. But you can't. Yet you want to teach it in school anyway. This goes against the spirit, methods and principles of real science. It also goes against the First Amendment.

    Your final paragraph is a fine example of projection.

  • MIDutch 4 years ago

    The concept of an "intelligent designer" goes all the way back to Plato's "demiurge" (Timaeus) and Aristotle's "unmoved mover" (Metaphysics). In other words, the idea has been around for well over 2400 years. Unfortunately, in all of that time NO empirical evidence has ever been found in support of this idea.

    Let me repeat that ... 2400+ years ... NO scientific evidence.

    Not a very good track record where scientific inquiry, discovery and innovation are concerned.

    Probably why Mr. Cunningham offers a quaint "down on the farm" analogy about the limb of a tree, instead of the empirical evidence or scientific research in support of the "intelligent design hypothesis" that might actually be scientifically convincing.

  • LowellGuy 4 years ago

    So, let me get this straight: you make claims without evidence to back them up, expect people to believe you, and declare anyone who disagrees to be blinkered. Does irony mean nothing to you?

  • madrone 4 years ago

    Actually, in your tree limb analogy, a Creationist would claim that there was no way to know where the limb came from as nothing can be determined from evidence. I.E. nothing ever happened unless someone observed it happening.

  • Nick 4 years ago

    >>"Actually, in your tree limb analogy, a Creationist would claim that there was no way to know where the limb came from as nothing can be determined from evidence. I.E. nothing ever happened unless someone observed it happening."

    But they demand an exception for Goddidit.

  • SkepticalProphet 4 years ago

    I believe in a Creator, which - de facto - makes me a Creationist. But it doesn't necessarily follow that that I must deny evolution.

    ID fanatics consistently hail complexity (of the human eye, for example) as evidence for design. But what could possibly be more complex than an evolutionary process that began millions of years ago and has resulted in the creation of countless species that we don't even know about yet? Tell me why believing this glorifies God less than simply believing that Jesus made people from clumps of dirt?

    Morever, if every creature currently exists as it was created in eternity past by the hand of God, then why do men have nipples? They serve no utilitarian purpose that we can tell.... Could it be that sexual differentiation (along with various other characteristics, like opposable thumbs) arises partly as a result of natural forces? God exists - but who can claim to understand his methods?

  • Nick 4 years ago

    The term Creationist usually tends to refer to believers who reject some (or all) science for the sake of their beliefs. Theist may be a better term. But what do labels matter anyway, we all have our own view of looking at ourselves.

    >>>"God exists - but who can claim to understand his methods?"

    That's what science and the scientific method is for. It tries anyway. But your average reality-denying creationist*** prefers to place limits on their supposedly all-powerful universe-creating god. Doesn't seem to be a great way to glorify Him, IMHO.

    ***Note, most theists don't necessarily fall into this category.