In a very good article here
http://www.apologeticspress.org/inthenews/2003/itn-03-04.htm
entitled "Is Evolution Ready to Take Over Christianity?", author Brad Harrub, Ph.D., discusses Michael Ruse, who, Harrub thinks, is seeking to take over the vacant seat left by Gould in terms of evolutionary apologetics.
Ruse has been known for admitting that evolution involves its own religious implications, and both he and Harrub back that up in the article. The close of the article has an interesting bit, however, which is even more telling:
In the May 1980 issue of Physics Bulletin, H.S. Lipson, an eminent British physicist and evolutionist, authored a thought-provoking article titled “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” which sparked quite a controversy. Dr. Lipson commented on his longstanding interest in the origin of life, yet made it clear that he has had no association with any type of creation theory or creationists in general. He then noted, however: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.” Lipson then “wondered aloud” in his article about how successfully evolution has withstood scientific testing. He concluded:
-- "I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings. I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all" (31:138). --
After reviewing many of the problems of getting that which is living from that which is nonliving (especially the thermodynamic problems), Dr. Lipson asked: “If living matter is not, then, caused by an interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?”
After dismissing any kind of “directed evolution,” Dr. Lipson concluded: “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation” (emp. in orig.). Does this make Dr. Lipson happy? Hardly! Like other evolutionists, he is quite unhappy with his own conclusion. He remarked: “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” (31:138, emp. added). I could not agree more!
As someone who has also looked into the biological side and genetic side of evolutionary claims, I find myself in total agreement with Lipson.
The fact is, actual, existing evidence not only does not support evolution, it evidences real support for special creation!
http://www.apologeticspress.org/inthenews/2003/itn-03-04.htm
entitled "Is Evolution Ready to Take Over Christianity?", author Brad Harrub, Ph.D., discusses Michael Ruse, who, Harrub thinks, is seeking to take over the vacant seat left by Gould in terms of evolutionary apologetics.
Ruse has been known for admitting that evolution involves its own religious implications, and both he and Harrub back that up in the article. The close of the article has an interesting bit, however, which is even more telling:
In the May 1980 issue of Physics Bulletin, H.S. Lipson, an eminent British physicist and evolutionist, authored a thought-provoking article titled “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” which sparked quite a controversy. Dr. Lipson commented on his longstanding interest in the origin of life, yet made it clear that he has had no association with any type of creation theory or creationists in general. He then noted, however: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.” Lipson then “wondered aloud” in his article about how successfully evolution has withstood scientific testing. He concluded:
-- "I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings. I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all" (31:138). --
After reviewing many of the problems of getting that which is living from that which is nonliving (especially the thermodynamic problems), Dr. Lipson asked: “If living matter is not, then, caused by an interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?”
After dismissing any kind of “directed evolution,” Dr. Lipson concluded: “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation” (emp. in orig.). Does this make Dr. Lipson happy? Hardly! Like other evolutionists, he is quite unhappy with his own conclusion. He remarked: “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” (31:138, emp. added). I could not agree more!
As someone who has also looked into the biological side and genetic side of evolutionary claims, I find myself in total agreement with Lipson.
The fact is, actual, existing evidence not only does not support evolution, it evidences real support for special creation!
