The Scopes Trial Revisited

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,220
I found something I wrote years ago...

“Earlier this century the famous Scopes "Monkey" Trial proved to be a turning point in science education. The State of Tennessee brought John Thomas Scopes to trial for teaching evolution in a public school, in opposition to the Butler Act.

This act declared that no theory in conflict with the biblical story of creation, as laid down in the first chapters of Genesis should be taught. Although Scopes was found guilty, the American Civil Liberties Union, and freedom of scientific enquiry finally triumphed.

This decision opened the way for scientific findings to be presented in educational establishments, regardless of their implications for religious faith or cherished beliefs. Evolution was quickly embraced by the educationalists of the day, and so certain did the theory seem to its exponents that many were led to state that it was a fact.

Two years after the trial, Prof. George Gaylord Simpson wrote that "Darwin finally and definitely established evolution as fact". In England the same year, Sir Arthur Keith wrote in his 'Concerning Man's On'gin, (1927) "Will Darwin's victory endure for all time? So strong has his position become that I am convinced it will never be shaken".

However, half a century later many scientists were not so sure. Dr Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum, addressed over fifty classification specialists at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 with the question "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution any one thing, any one thing that is true?" After a long silence, one listener volunteered: "I know it should not be taught as fact in schools".

The probability that evolution could have produced life in the first place has been questioned by many scientists. Sir Fred Hoyle wrote (Evolution from Space, 1981): "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero".

Professor H.J.Lipson (A Physicist looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin, 1980) sums up the thinking of a growing number of scientists when he writes: "I think, however, that we must go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it".

Despite a growing number of scientists who are abandoning evolutionary ideas, when it comes to what should be taught in schools, evolution is presented as the accepted theory of origins. It is commonly contended that “Evolution is science”, whereas “Creation is religion”.

The philosopher Karl Popper has argued that for any hypothesis to be within the realm of scientific theory, it must be phenomenon that may be tested by human observers and be repeatable. It is only then subject to the scientific method.

Creation has not been observed by human witnesses and since creation would involve unique, unrepeatable historical events, it is not subject to the scientific method. As a theory it is non-falsifiable as it is impossible to conceive of an experiment that could disprove it. Though creation does not fulfil the criteria of a scientific theory, that in itself does not invalidate it.

Evolution likewise sufferers from this problem. World-famous evolutionist Dr T. Dobzhansky stated the problem lucidly (American Scientist, Dec. 1957) "These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable and irreversible. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted". Dr L. Merson Davies (The Bible and Modem Science, 1953) [a founding father of CSM Ed.] wrote: "It is Darwin's habit of confusing the provable with the unprovable which constituted, to my mind, the most unforgivable offence against science".

It follows that the dogmatic claims that “evolution is a fact", made by early evolutionist writers as well as contemporary ones like Prof R.Dawkins, are ill-founded. So is the tired claim that "Evolution is science but Creation is religion".

In his book "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation", Gillespie points out that in Darwin’s day, creationists frequently pleaded ignorance of the means of creation yet always affirmed the fact of creation. Patterson perceptively noted that the boot was now on the other foot. Evolutionists are now pleading ignorance of the means of evolution while always affirming the fact of evolution. On this point he states that it is hard to distinguish creationist attitudes of the past from evolutionists today!

In this climate of scientific debate, and the lack of clear difference in the scientific nature of these theories, surely no-one interested in academic freedom would seriously oppose the presentation in the classroom of scientific facts from both sides of the debate.

Would it not be better for the cause of scientific enquiry (and teach students more about the areas of experimental and investigative science), to allow the diversity of scientific view on origins to be honestly presented in schools? If both views were presented, allowing the main points of scientific evidence to be aired, surely this would not be detrimental to the cause of true science?

This situation would not be a 'Trojan Horse for religious fundamentalism infiltrating the world of science teaching, but rather, provide some much needed scientific objectivity to the question.

Where does all this leave the cause of science education? Does the teaching of origins in schools reflect open minded scientific questioning, or do we stand again in that hot Tennessee courtroom and and hear religious evolutionists trying a school teacher for inferring that the scientific evidence may not favour evolution?“
 






Last edited:

Wigi

Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
673
The real problem of evolution is semantics and the way its definition is constantly changing over time but indeed state sponsored scientific narrative has never been about open mindness but all about consensus and peer review.

If the peers agrees with your views, you can finance your work and they will support you in your findings. I don't believe in 'scientific experts are unbiased and only cares about observable facts'.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,220
Werner Heisenberg was a German theoretical physicist, one of the key pioneers of quantum mechanics and known as "Father of Quantum Physics". He is listed in Top 10 Greatest Physicist of all time and a devout Christian.

His view is true, indeed and a reply to
skeptics who endorse a mythology that science rules out God. I also once was too skeptical when it came to God and Science but now the more I study Science, the more im growing in "Knowledge and grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus" (Cf. 2 Peter 3:18)

BC9FC05A-7929-4CC2-B2D6-10785384DA1A.jpeg
 






Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,220
In a new study published in the journal Nature, neuroscientists Adam B. Weinberger, Natalie M. Gallagher, Zachary J. Warren, Gwendolyn A. English, Fathali M. Moghaddam and Adam E. Green at the University of Georgetown have found that the ability to see patterns in visual cues correlates strongly with belief in God, meaning people who are more apt to see order in visual data are also more likely to state there is a God/order to the universe.


Psalm 8:3-6
King James Version


3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
 






Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,178
I don't understand the issue some people have with evolution, outside of having a 100% literal interputiation of the Genesis stories. But considering that no Jewish sect to my knowledge believes such a thing, nor most Christian and Muslim sects... It feels weird that anyone would think it's a big deal at all. It's not like the idea of evolution stops most religions from believing in God.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,220
I don't understand the issue some people have with evolution, outside of having a 100% literal interputiation of the Genesis stories. But considering that no Jewish sect to my knowledge believes such a thing, nor most Christian and Muslim sects... It feels weird that anyone would think it's a big deal at all. It's not like the idea of evolution stops most religions from believing in God.
Recently I read “There IS a God” by the infamous ex-atheist, Anthony Flew. He still retains an evolutionary paradigm but has come to the conclusion that even given that, evolution cannot produce life or design in any way. If God continually intervened in the evolutionary process like a good gardener looked after a tender plant, that might represent the view expressed in his work, NT Wright et al at Biologos.

Where I had a change in thinking (as the above was where I started), I found that there were substantial reasons for believing that the science itself is not (at least) wholly in favour of evolution. Given that theistic evolution or young earth creation both lead me to be convinced of God, this is more about honestly evaluating the evidence and weighing it.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,220
Geologists are uncovering mounting evidence of asteroids and meteorites that struck the earth during the past. Are these extraterrestrial missiles somehow related to the initiation of the Flood?

Have you ever wondered what triggered the Genesis Flood? Genesis 7:11 tells us that a unique geologic event took place at the same moment as the Flood began: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”
But what catastrophe might God have used to cause the earth’s crust—many miles thick—to crack?
Most creation geologists believe that the opening of “the fountains of the great deep” refers to the breakup of the earth’s crust into plates.1 The subsequent rapid, catastrophic movement of these plates would have released huge quantities of hot subterranean waters and molten rock into the ocean. As the hot water gushed through the fractured seafloor, the water flashed into superheated steam and shot high into the atmosphere as supersonic steam jets, carrying sea water that eventually fell as rain.

But what catastrophe might God have used to cause the earth’s crust—many miles thick—to crack? Some have suggested a meteorite or asteroid impact of unprecedented size and scope.2 Do we find any evidence? Geologists have discovered some gargantuous remnant craters and piles of debris leftover from massive impacts that easily fit the bill.

 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,220
790AD2E6-EB71-418D-B5D2-382E66102BA0.jpeg
^ I saw this on Facebook

One of the comments below explained that scale of the difficulty with point number 3 well:-

“Not only does programmed information need a programmer, but it also needs a reading device. Even if you could get the mathematically absurd, miraculous chance arrangement of 1s and 0s that just happen to form an mp3 of Beethoven's 5th, it would do you absolutely no good without a machine to load it into, decoding software to understand it and equipment to play back the sound...which also assumes an intelligent listener that recognizes the sounds as music in the first place. A lot of miracles in the atheist worldview. And Hitchens thought that turning water to wine was difficult lol.”
 






Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,220
Moss Piglets are the best!

799C07A7-F5B7-46EB-9CD2-43CA1223AB02.jpeg

Imagine the technical difficulties in evolving by random mutation and natural selection something so complex and robust!!

 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,220
“Micro” and “Macro” Evolution are definitions that evolutionist seem to hate but they are worth exploring.

Both creationists and evolutionists believe in natural selection and even speciation. Through a process of differentiation and isolation over time, creatures may become incompatible with other branches of the same tree and therefore unable to produce viable offspring. Some people call this “evolution” but I think it is rightly defined as “micro-evolution”. The jump in differences between one group of birds breeding in March and a separate group with common ancestry breeding in June might lead to the technical definition of a new species.

The elephant in the room is that some changes or jumps are larger than others...

The way I have come to understand it is that a man might, with a run up be able to jump over a stream, but logic doesn’t then indicate that the same man, with enough attempts they could leap over a lake.

The obstacle of irreducible complex structures means that certain steps in evolutionary progress require our man to jump lakes on a regular basis. Each one of these jumps may require the appearance of novel, fully formed structures which are passed on to the next generation. This problem is one the world of evolutionary science has wrestled with for years without any answer, because there is none. It is a fundamental and invalidating flaw in the theory.
 






Top