The Biblical Case for Pro-Choice & Stem Cell Research

[anonemouse 1]

Gadgetlady, I don't want you to think I am attacking you by asking this, because I truly think the question is warranted.

If you firmly believe that we shouldn't believe in evolution, since it is a theory that (you say) is unproven and is supported by no evidence, how can you support being a Christian?

ETA: Changed "defend" to "support", since I realized that "defend" might have some negative connotations that I didn't intend.

[gadgetlady 4]

An honest question about YEC. I'm fairly familiar with the idea, but not with the minutia.

The speed of light is exactly 299,792,478 meters/second. The farthest visible galaxy (unaided) is the Andromeda galaxy, 2.2 million light years away from us.

If the universe did not exist until 6k years ago, how can we see light that had to originate 2.2 million years ago?

Does YEC stipulate that the speed of light is wrong?

* Edited - Oy, I'm tired, Correction to my own stupid mistake above in blue.

I really don't like to post and run, but I'm running short on time. And this article says it better than I ever could.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/light.asp

Wheetsin, I have to say I GREATLY appreciate your posts. Honest questions are wonderful on both sides and lead to greater understanding. What drives me nuts are the closed-minded comments from people who have never researched the issue. I understand researching the issue and disagreeing. But blind faith in a belief and disparaging the opposition when you haven't even bothered to explore the issues is just plain ignorant.

[Sunta 4]

Have you spent any time researching the claims involved or have you dismissed it entirely without any research?

I have spent time researching the 6,000 year old theory (several months ago when an article came out on a "creationism" museum opening soon in the south), but the "supporting evidence" is incomprehensible and makes zero logical sense. It's totally unscientific, relies on bizarre and completely unsubstantiated claims, and actually, I found most of the articles on it generally unreadable because they were so full of garbage and nonsense.

Creationism flies in the face of everything we know to be scientifically true about fossils, carbon dating, and indeed, science as a whole. It is patently absurd, and quite frankly I have zero idea how any learned person would even give it much thought, let alone believe it. I'm not saying you're not an intelligent person, but honestly it is so over the top crazy that I am entirely unsure how anyone with any schooling could give any credence to such a theory.

Creationsim is a danger to the minds of young people, and a threat to all rational, logical, scientific thought.

The earth is much older than 6,000 years old. I don't understand why anyone would favor belief in something that has absolutely zero evidence, when there is clearly, clearly, concrete evidence that they CAN see with their own eyes. That is simply nonsensical.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I once knew a 747 pilot; a "Born Again" Evangelical Christian who believed the Bible to be word for word true.

When we discussed dinosaurs, he said that they were rocks carved to look like bones of a large skeleton This was before the latest “excuse de jour”, which is that the dinosaurs were killed in the "Great Flood".

When I mentioned carbon dating, he said that carbon dating was inaccurate. "Yes," I said, "carbon dating is inaccurate. When they date something as 70 million years old, it might be only 50 million or might be closer to 100 million, but not 6,000".

When he tried to totally discredit the science, I reminded him that the airplane he was piloting to Egypt that evening, was designed using the same scientific principles that developed the "Theory of Relativity".

[BJean 16]

Since you didn't say what your pilot friend's response was, I imagine it to be something like, "HUH?"

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Since you didn't say what your pilot friend's response was, I imagine it to be something like, "HUH?"

No! It was that the Earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs are fictitious.

[BJean 16]

Well that's even more brilliant than, Huh.

Blind faith, yeah, that's the ticket.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

And wasn't the tree that Adam got caught eating forbidden fruit from called the "Tree of Knowledge"?:faint:

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadgetlady, I don't want you to think I am attacking you by asking this, because I truly think the question is warranted.

If you firmly believe that we shouldn't believe in evolution, since it is a theory that (you say) is unproven and is supported by no evidence, how can you support being a Christian?

ETA: Changed "defend" to "support", since I realized that "defend" might have some negative connotations that I didn't intend.

Thanks for the question, laurend. I don't think you're attacking at all.

I will repeat what I said earlier about theories of origins: I don't believe any of them are definitively proven or perhaps even capable of being proven, but I choose to believe the theory of origins that is, to me, most supported by the evidence.

As to being a Christian, I believe there is more proof than most people realize. There are many great theologians that were once athiests, agnostics, and members of other faiths; in their search to debunk Christianity, they became Christians. If you'd like links to their testimonies, I'd be happy to provide several. They are very interesting reading.

Let me ask you a question: Read the following scriptures and tell me who they're taking about. Don't cheat -- don't go look them up. Just give me a gut reaction based on your knowledge of the Bible as to who they're talking about:

"They have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing."

"I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting."

"He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

"He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth."

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven."

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

"See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

"I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver."

[gadgetlady 4]

Have you spent any time researching the claims involved or have you dismissed it entirely without any research?

I have spent time researching the 6,000 year old theory (several months ago when an article came out on a "creationism" museum opening soon in the south), but the "supporting evidence" is incomprehensible and makes zero logical sense. It's totally unscientific, relies on bizarre and completely unsubstantiated claims, and actually, I found most of the articles on it generally unreadable because they were so full of garbage and nonsense.

I don't know what you were reading, but I have previously listed some sites that are very intelligent, comprehensible, and scientific discussions of creation science and/or intelligent design. You might want to try some of those links.

The earth is much older than 6,000 years old. I don't understand why anyone would favor belief in something that has absolutely zero evidence, when there is clearly, clearly, concrete evidence that they CAN see with their own eyes.

What evidence can you clearly, clearly see with your own eyes that speaks to the age of the earth. I don't know how old you are, but having lived likely have a decade or less, what clear evidence is there pointing to the age of the earth? Can you look at a rock and tell me how old it is? Can you look at a mountain and tell me how long it took to form it? Do you know how long it takes to make a fossil? Do you know how long it takes and what forces create strata in rock?

[gadgetlady 4]

No! It was that the Earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs are fictitious.

So he was wrong. I've met a lot of people who are wrong about a lot of things. That doesn't prove creation science and/or intelligent design is wrong. It just proves that you know someone who didn't study the matter very well. I think it speaks more to who your friends or acquaintances are than it does to the theory

[gadgetlady 4]

And wasn't the tree that Adam got caught eating forbidden fruit from called the "Tree of Knowledge"?:faint:

No, that was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Big difference.

[BJean 16]

So Gadgetlady, you are willing to take the Bible as truth, but not the theory of evolution? Isn't it really because you choose to believe the words in the Bible, not because of any proof or lack of proof? You mention several sources that you think make creationism credible. I believe they impress you because they back up your beliefs, not because they provide any real proof.

When people start quoting passages in the Bible I usually realize that they have made a decision to believe in the Bible and one must weigh their arguments knowing that they have this "faith" that has little to do with scientific theories or facts as we know them. Carl Sagan believed in the concept of God. He was also a scientist. He said he believed in God because that's what he chose to believe. I was impressed with his honesty.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

So he was wrong. I've met a lot of people who are wrong about a lot of things. That doesn't prove creation science and/or intelligent design is wrong. It just proves that you know someone who didn't study the matter very well. I think it speaks more to who your friends or acquaintances are than it does to the theory

But that was the line that the anti-evolutions were spouting then.

Many years earlier, it was the "Earth is flat" and "Earth is the center of the Universe" or "Earth is the center of the solar system".

Every time they are proved wrong by science they come out with a new distortion of the truth.

First it was dinosaurs being rocks carved to look like bones and now its the great flood killed all the dinosaurs, but as usual the "Intelligent Design" or creationists or just plain "the Bible is word for word correct" advocates leave out little subtleties that most lay people don't know existed.

Now Rick Warren is saying that God knew my DNA 6000 years ago when he was going through the events depicted in story of Genesis. Funny I never found the word DNA in the Bible.

Some Christians believe that the Bible is not "word for word", but stories with metaphors. One day in God's view might be one or two billion years. God may have started the first spark of what became evolution, but to many Christians, to be around for 16 Billion years and to read the minds of 6 billion people all at once is not powerful enough for them, so they have to put all the knowledge of past, present and future in God, which takes away free will.

If those people are right, then whatever I write here is God's choice, since He knew I would write this 6,000 years ago. And if he knew it 6,000 years ago, who am I to make him wrong? I am not that powerful.

[gadgetlady 4]

So Gadgetlady, you are willing to take the Bible as truth, but not the theory of evolution? Isn't it really because you choose to believe the words in the Bible, not because of any proof or lack of proof?

I do, indeed, choose to believe in God and the Bible. But I don't do so blindly; I do so with faith AND with research. I also believe that others blindly accept the theory of evolution as truth and therefore it is a religion, of sorts, to them.

When I was in high school and studied evolution, it just didn't ring true to me. I didn't know a darn thing about creation science (I didn't even know it existed), and I didn't believe in the authority of the Bible at that time in my life. The whole molecules-to-man, fish grew feet and decided to walk theory of evolution just plain didn't make sense to me.

When people start quoting passages in the Bible I usually realize that they have made a decision to believe in the Bible and one must weigh their arguments knowing that they have this "faith" that has little to do with scientific theories or facts as we know them.

Besides theories of origins, which I understand you don't agree with me (or the Bible) on, what other scientific theories or facts does the Bible contradict (in your opinion)?

Carl Sagan believed in the concept of God. He was also a scientist. He said he believed in God because that's what he chose to believe. I was impressed with his honesty.

There are many scientists who not only believe in the concept of God but also believe in God. From http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html:

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

"…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like

Darwin Retried

(1971), Macbeth;

The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong

(1982), Hitching;

The Great Evolution Mystery

(1983), Taylor;

The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution

(1984), Fix;

Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities

(1984), Cohen;

Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth

(1987), Lovtrup; and

Adam and Evolution

(1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'."

2

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

3

One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

5

Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." 6

Partial list of Creationist scientists

(past and present)

• 
  
• 600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).
  
• 150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)

• 
  
• Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
  
• Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
  
• Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
  
• Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
  
• Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
  
• Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
  
• Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
  
• Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
  
• Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
  
• David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
  
• Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
  
• Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
  
• Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
  
• Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
  
• Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
  
• Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
  
• Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
  
• Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
  
• Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
  
• Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
  
• Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
  
• John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
  
• Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
  
• William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
  
• George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
  
• D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
  
• James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
  
• Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
  
• John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
  
• Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
  
• Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
  
• Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
  
• Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
  
• Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
  
• Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
  
• James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
  
• Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
  
• Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
  
• Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
  
• Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
  
• Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
  
• Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
  
• William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
  
• John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
  
• Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
  
• Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
  
• James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
  
• Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
  
• George Stokes (helped develop science of Fluid mechanics)
  
• Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
  
• William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
  
• Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
  
• Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
  
• Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
  
• A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
  
• A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
  
• John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.