Creationism vs Evolution: a Battle between Two Religions

CHRIS88

基督门徒
管理成员
VIP
注册
2006-05-10
消息
10,228
荣誉分数
893
声望点数
293
Creationism vs Evolution: a Battle between Two Religions

1. Creation vs evolution, an overview
a. Facts, truths and the Truth;
b. Faith and truth
c. Christianity and Science
d. Science and Christianity

2. Christianity is the cradle of modern science
a. Sciences in ancient civilizations
b. Modern science in the “dark age”
c. The Catholic church in science
d. Christians in science
e. Christianity provides the fundamental theorems of sciences (e.g., Joule and the first law)
f. Persecution of science by the church

3. Don’t cross the line!
a. The rise and fall of the Copernican principle (mediocrity principle)
b. Conservation of matter
c. Conservation of energy
d. The second law of thermodynamics
e. Albert Einstein and Newton
f. Richard Dawkins: Biologist vs the Champion of Atheism
g. An earlier debate: Life from life vs the spontaneous generation
h. Darwin and Darwinism

4. Creationism vs Evolution: the battle between two religions
a. Darwin’s scientific research
b. The Origin of Species
c. Darwinism: hatred and killing
d. Ideologies leading to the world wars
e. The triumph of Darwinism: Communists taking over the world!
f. Darwinism inching into the textbooks in the west
g. The recession of Christianity from the “Public Squares”
h. It's in my textbook!

5. Creationism vs Evolution: Direct Scientific findings
a. Fossil evidences
b. Seawater salinity
c. Formation of big valleys
d. Geological evidences
e. Age of the earth/universe

6. Life from rock: what the evolutionists trying to sell you
a. The cosmological evolution: the origin of the universe
b. The element evolution: from hydrogen to the 108
c. The chemical evolution: from inorganic compounds to “the organic soup”
d. Cellular evolution: from unicellular to multi-cellular
e. Origin of species: from monkeys to humans

7. Life from rock? The biological evidences
a. The ecosystem
b. Complexity of organism
c. Complexity of cellular structure
d. Molecular biological evidences

8. Are we animals? The morality argument
a. The nature of humans
b. Moral principle
c. The origin of moral principles
d. What is right?


9. The first cause argument
a. The diversity vs uniformity of the nature;
b. The universal applicability of natural laws;
c. The design argument vs the argument of probability
d. The first cause

10. The biblical world view
a. Young earth vs ancient earth
b. Origin of life
c. Origin of human
d. The fall and fallibility of human
e. The flood
f. The earth before and after the flood
g. Human’s Sin vs God’s grace and justice

11. Conclusion remarks
a. The philosophical argument
b. The scientific argument
c. The moral argument
d. The biblical argument
e. The witness argument
 

CHRIS88

基督门徒
管理成员
VIP
注册
2006-05-10
消息
10,228
荣誉分数
893
声望点数
293
一直想就一些特定的专题集中整理一下想法和资料。但一来忙,二来懒,总是开了个头就放下来了。这次和牧师和一位弟兄分享时,提到可以先开一个主日学课程和大家一起分享讨论。觉得是个不错的主意。

但是,我深知自己的弱点,恐怕不久又放弃了。所以把计划公开出来,一来可以随时和大家分享。二来也是一个监督。

这个提纲只是一个初步想法,以后在细化和收集资料的过程中会随时修改。
愿主保守和祝福这项工作。
 

ForwardRetreat

非自定义头衔
注册
2011-03-23
消息
2,030
荣誉分数
432
声望点数
93
as i mentioned before, you keep believing and i keep evolving.
 

CHRIS88

基督门徒
管理成员
VIP
注册
2006-05-10
消息
10,228
荣誉分数
893
声望点数
293
Christianity and Modern Science

1.Sciences in different civilizations
a. China: the four innovations
b. India: the concept of zero and the “Arabic numbers”
c. Scientific development in the Islamic world
d. Sciences and philosophy in ancient Greece

2. Modern science in the “dark age”
a. Scientific developments
b. Mathematics, physics, instrumentation, astronomy, biology, medical, geology and exploration
c. Transmission of the classics
d. Renaissance
e. Scientific revolution

3. The Catholic church in early development of modern science
a. The guardian
b. The administrator
c. The worker

4. Christians in science
a. Famous Christian scientists
b. Famous research institutions and their Christian roots
c. Noble prize winners and their religious beliefs

5. “Persecution of science” by the church
a. Burning down of the Library of Alexandra
b. The case of Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543)
c. The case of Galileo Galilei (1564 - 8 January 1642)
d. The case of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)

6.Christianity, the cradle of modern science
a. Christianity provides the fundamental theorems of sciences: the right world view
b. Christianity provides the strongest motivation for scientific research: truth-seeking
c. Christianity provides the value system that is essential for modern science
i. Peace
ii. Tolerance
iii. Liberty (freedom)
iv. Equality

7. Conclusion remarks
 

CHRIS88

基督门徒
管理成员
VIP
注册
2006-05-10
消息
10,228
荣誉分数
893
声望点数
293
PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
February 1, 2012


Editor’s Note:While intelligent design (ID) research is a new scientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.

In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publicationscontinueto appear. The current boom goes back to 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journalProceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.

Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is "developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology." Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.

Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical andComputerEngineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming "points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer."

Other pro-ID scientists around the world are publishing peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific papers. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.

These and other labs and researchers have published theirworkin a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such asProtein Science,Journal of Molecular Biology,Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling,Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics,Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International,Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum,Physics of Life Reviews,Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, andcomputerscience.

Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.

Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically thatrecognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience -- hisOrigin of Species-- not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID's peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves -- and is receiving -- serious consideration by the scientific community.

The purpose of ID's research program is not to convince the unconvincible -- critics who repeat over and over in the media that there is no such thing as ID research, that ID has not produced a single peer-reviewed paper. Rather, ID research seeks to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design.

And this is happening. ID has already gained the kind of scientific recognition you would expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) but promising scientific field. The scientific progress of ID has won the serious attention of skeptics in the scientific community, who engage in scientific debate with ID and attend private scientific conferences allowing off-the-record discussion with ID proponents.

We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design. The articles are grouped according to the type of publication.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
 

CHRIS88

基督门徒
管理成员
VIP
注册
2006-05-10
消息
10,228
荣誉分数
893
声望点数
293
美国科学家联合签名反对达尔文的进化论

在这篇反对文章上签名的美国科学家共有514名,其中有154名是生物学家;76名是化学家,63名是物理学家,其余的是一些毗邻学科的专家们。在这些科学家联合签名的反对文章中写道:“我们对达尔文的进化理论表示非常的怀疑。”

这篇文章还称:“我们对达尔文进化论中的自然选择理论表示怀疑。我们认为,作为科学家,我们有责任要求各领域科学界进行一系列更加深入的研究,以确定达尔文的理论是否合理。”据这篇反对文章的起草者认为,地球上的生命具有极其复杂的发展过程,达尔文进化理论狭窄的框框根本容纳不了地球生命的起源与未来发展进程。

猴子比人聪明得多
几年前,一位长期从事猴子野外行为研究的人说,猴子的行为十分神秘,几年研究下来,越发觉得进化论的理论无法站住脚。猴子的群体的管理方式很独特,它们有很多办法“使自己生活得更好”,很多东西是人根本无法理解的。比如对自然变化的反应,猴子比人要聪明得多,对于地震、洪水等各种灾难的反应,比科学仪器还准确。怎么能说人是猴子变的呢?

按照达尔文的进化论推算,人类出现文明最多也就是1万年吧。那么按着这个推理,猴子应该是最聪明的动物了,在猴子变成人之前,应该是它们主宰世界了,这又和进化论物种竞争的说法矛盾了。

进化论认为,生物界是从简单到复杂,从低级到高级,逐渐变化而成的。如果是这样,那么世界上万物都是这样进化来的了,那么小白鼠是什么进化来的?大象是什么进化来的?苍蝇蚊子是什么进化来的?现代生物学分类的那些不同的动植物中,同一分类级别的物种,哪些是简单的,哪些是高级的?它们都是怎么来的?当时有多少猴子变成了人,什么样的猴子能变成人,什么样的猴子不能变成人?地球上那些没有猴子的地方,人是怎么来的?远古时期又没有交通工具。

这位研究工作者说,如果把所有的疑问提出来自己就完了,研究课题就得结束。因为那些老“科学家”绝对不同意这种背叛达尔文的观点。因为这样,他们就等于在推翻自己研究一辈子的“成果”,等于自己和自己过不去。

500名科学家否定进化论
超过500名拥有博士学位的科学家联合签署了一份声明,对达尔文的进化论提出了质疑。签署声明的科学家当中,有的还是美国国家科学院和俄罗斯科学院享有很高声望的成员。2001年,PBS电视台为宣传其“进化”系列节目发表声明称:“实际上,世界上的每一个科学家都相信进化论是正确的。”就在那个时候,西雅图的“发现学会”对PBS的言论首次提出了质疑。

“发现学会科学与文化中心”副主任约翰•韦斯特说:“达尔文主义者仍在说没有一个严肃科学家怀疑进化论,但是这里有500名科学家愿意公开表示他们质疑这一理论。”

其实达尔文没有肯定过他的理论。专家说:进化论只是一种假设理论,达尔文希望将来能发现确凿的证据,来证明他的进化论是对的,可是经得起检验的证据至今也没有找到,而且进化论的理论与事实也出入太大,论证模棱两可,结论也无法重复。后来的学者是把进化论当作一种科学的信仰继承下来的。这种新奇的假说很快形成了一个流行的信仰,人云亦云,现在被人当成了真理。

如果进化存在,必然存在进化过程中物种之间的过渡类型,否则进化就是谬论。在逻辑上,过渡类型的化石也就成了进化论的三大证据之一。而事实上,这方面并没有确凿的证据可用,达尔文等人猜想20世纪会找到明确的证据,结果现代的人一着急就自己伪造证据。
数起伪造的“进化论证据”

在从猿到人的问题上,寻找过渡物种“类猿人”,早就列入了科学的“十大悬案”。数次宣布的人类始祖,很快就被否定了。例如,1892年发现的人和猿之间的过渡化石“嘉伯人”,是一块猿的头骨和相距40英尺的一根人的腿骨拼凑出来的,学术界否定了“嘉伯人”,科教方面却还在宣传。直到1984年“嘉伯人”才被新发现的猿人化石“露茜”代替。但后来的鉴定中,露茜也被大部分学者否定了,科学家已经确定了露茜是一种绝种的猿,和人无关。

6具“始祖鸟化石”的相继问世,轰动了世界,成为鸟类和爬行动物之间过渡物种的典范。后来鉴定出5具是人造的,剩下的一具拥有者坚决拒绝拿出来做任何鉴定。最初的“发现者”坦白了造假的原因之一:太信仰进化论了,找不出证据只好自己伪造。

科学最新研究:地球上动物首次出现的时间距今不超过5.8亿年。按着达尔文的进化论“推算”人类出现文明都没有超过一万年。可是另一项考古成果却是20亿年前,非洲落后的加蓬共和国造了一个核反应堆!那时候连动物都没有,这不是打坚持进化论学说的科学家嘴巴吗?
1880年,美国加利福尼亚的太波山下出土了许多精巧的石器工具,鉴定后确认这是5500万年前的遗迹,完全打破了进化论里人类进化的体系。其实很多科学家经过研究发现进化论使科学走进死胡同。

1966年,墨西哥的霍亚勒克出土了一批铁矛,美国地质学家麦金泰尔博士奉命去鉴定。她用了两种方法测定了铁矛的年代,得到了同样的结果:距今25万年。这个违背进化论的结果实在让科学界无法接受。一个欧洲学者迫于各方面的压力,改成了人们愿意接受的年代。而麦金泰尔,这位在国际上有一定声望的教授,却从此失去了在相关领域里工作的一切机会。

已故的考古学家阿曼塔也遭遇了类似的命运。他在墨西哥的普瑞拉瓦城发现了一个史前动物的颌骨,里面有一块残破的铁矛的矛头,鉴定发现是26万年前的武器,一些刊物公布了这个不寻常的发现,但很快招来了“权威们”不做任何调查的批判,阿曼塔的事业也从此被扼杀了。

达尔文“进化论”被推翻的原因
达尔文“进化论”统治了科学界一百多年,其核心思想是,一切生物都是由低级到高级进化而来的,在进化过程中,优胜劣汰,适者生存,其进化条件是,基本生物元素通过随机的、偶然的碰撞,使得其自身越来越复杂,功能越来越多,逐渐向高级生命过渡。

达尔文“进化论”问世一百多年来,特别是其核心思想“优胜劣汰,适者生存”在社会上引起了强大反响,人们按照这种生存竞争理念在社会上不断求得自身的发展,随着市场经济的快速发展,这种理论显示出的弊端也越来越明显。社会上,投机倒把、弄虚作假、贪赃枉法、学历造假、偷税漏税等蔚然成风,他们抱着所谓的侥幸投机心理期望能够躲过法律的制裁,从潜意识的角度来说,还是深受那种随机进化论的影响,因为人是随机的产物,所以人的一切进步的东西似乎通过侥幸与投机才能实现。

还好,上个世纪三四十年代,随着高科技的突飞猛进,世界上很多顶级科学家开始对进化论产生了怀疑,他们借助现代的高科技,包括显微技术、化学技术、克隆技术、生物技术、天文学的观测与研究技术等一系列现代科技,发现进化论的种种局限性,仅仅是一种从感性上看起来像那么回事的理论,其假设前提是站不住脚的。

例如,现在研究物质进入了微观时代,科学家们对微观世界的一个分子进行研究,他们发现这个分子之所以具有一个整体功能,是因为这个分子是由无数个零部件组成的,每一个零部件都各司其职,各自发挥着自身独特的功能,有的负责能量运输,有的负责指挥方向,有的负责废弃物质与能量的处理,有的负责协调各个零件的关系等,如此这般复杂的分子内部结构,比世界上最复杂的加工厂还要复杂很多倍,研究发现,这些零件必须同时具备,少了任何一个,整体分子的功能都不复存在。

所以,无数个零件必须同时具备,整体功能才得以实现,按照进化论来说,显然是无法解释的。这样的例子还有很多,不仅在微观世界这一方面,科学家们通过无数事例越来越发现进化论有局限性,其实,进化论在短暂的历史时期而言,它是合理的,但从整个宇宙起源过程来看,它的理论显然是站不住脚的,经不起时间的检验,必将被另一种新的宇宙理论取代。

(摘自《奥秘》)
 

CHRIS88

基督门徒
管理成员
VIP
注册
2006-05-10
消息
10,228
荣誉分数
893
声望点数
293
注:
感兴趣的读者可以自己在这个网站下载这些签名科学家的名单:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php

这个签名还在继续,如果您也是一位反对进化论的科学家,您可以通过发电邮到此地址参与:

Sign the List

Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering,computerscience, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

If you meet these criteria, please consider signing the statement by emailing

contact@dissentfromdarwin.org
 

主爱拣选

新手上路
注册
2014-01-07
消息
22
荣誉分数
8
声望点数
13
进化还是创造,这个问题曾困扰我很久。虽然我早已不相信进化,但之前对于创造论却不那么自信。我曾上网查过很多资料,听过国语宣道会办的讲座,都没有解开我的结,没有人能说服我。直到最近宾州一个科学家的解释,才让我明白生命只能由创造形成。

说实话,这些年来我觉得自己是基督徒(决志过了),但是生命起源问题这个巨大的坎始终横在我面前,一度很泄气,也不那么理直气壮的告诉别人我是基督徒。没想到这次去美国参加同学聚会的时候,一个同学只用30分钟给大家作了个粗略的讲解,就把我带进一条通往光明的路。我的同学并非牧师,也不是长老,几年前才受洗,在宾州从事化学方面的研究。然而他对于生命起源问题有独到的认识,他从纯科学角度解释了为什么生命不可能源于进化,他非常缜密的逻辑推理让人无懈可击。正因为如此,现在我已经不会因为某个牧师有名气而去追看他(们)的布道视频了,尤其是生命起源问题上,我相信我的同学比许许多多有名气的大牧师解释得更精准。

我把同学提醒我的话(原文来源于网上)带来此与大家分享“任何人,不管他是何等的大师,他的话只能参考,不能高于圣经。我们可以不知道,说不知道并不能损害我们什么,那正是我们卑微的现状,是接受活水的正确心态“
 
最后编辑:

主爱拣选

新手上路
注册
2014-01-07
消息
22
荣誉分数
8
声望点数
13
creation==chicken.
evolution==egg
Chicken or egg?
先有鸡,还是先有蛋?进化论和创造论的争论就象是鸡和蛋的争论。
你的这个比方打得非常之不恰当。鸡与蛋之间有着内在的必然的联系,创造论与进化论有吗?
 
顶部