Author:
Pahu
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:03:41 10/16/08 Thu
THE BASIC ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION
Let it first be said that we need not argue on religious grounds. We do not need to simply stand firm crying, ''The Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it!" That attitude can be good, but there are good scientific grounds to reject evolution and believe in Creation. In fact, it is all based on the whole idea of what science is.
Science is based on causality; every event has a cause. Things don't happen willy-nilly. Even if we can't know specifically what particular cause produced a certain event, we can say what kind of cause it must have been because of the kinds of effects we see today. The idea that whatever caused some effect in the past will cause the same effect in the present is called the principle of uniformity. All science is based on finding causes using these two principles: causality and uniformity.
When scientific principles were first being developed into the scientific method, scientists like Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Issac Newton, and William Kelvin made a distinction between primary and secondary causes. A primary cause was a first cause that explained singularities—events that only happened once and had no natural explanation. Secondary causes were thought of as natural causes and laws that govern the way things normally operate. Unfortunately, some scientists began using supernatural causes to explain natural irregularities like earthquakes and meteors. When the truth was learned about these things, scientists eliminated primary causes from consideration altogether and sought to explain everything in terms of natural causes. But just as it was wrong for super-naturalists to explain ordinary events using primary causes, it is also wrong for the naturalist to explain all singularities by natural causes.
[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 