Here is an article by Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle:

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-...-anti-science/

Summary:

Evolution is anti-science and anti knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend.

Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions.

EvolutionIsts are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent, professing to believe in evolution, while accepting the principles of biblical creation.

I bet if you put your mind to it, you could provide an adequate response to any of Lisle's nonsense yourself.

In fact, why don't you give it a try? Pick any claim you like from the 'article' and provide a reasonable response.

Since this topic is going strong in the "Religion and Science" thread in the Politics Forum, I will pursue this there.

Moderator: Delete this thread if you want.

Hi, BF.

Please join us in the Religion and Science thread in the Politics Forum.

Having skimmed through it, I'll pass (though RGT should be getting the traffic, tbh).

I've read Lisles piece before (or something similar). He's an accomplished astrophysicist by many accounts, but I find his apologetics to be transparent nonsense.

Is it your contention that evolution by natural selection is inconsistent with belief in a Christian god that orders the world?

Not necessarily.

I would claim that belief in Darwinism (which I mockingly refer to as the "from the goo, to the zoo, to you" paradigm) is inconsistent with belief in the Christian God.

The belief that species evolve by a way of natural selection is almost certainly true, and is consistent with biblical Christianity.

I don't know what you mean by "Darwinism" here, as I use it to refer to the theory that species evolved by the process of natural selection. BTW, I refer to Christianity as the "Cannibalism" paradigm. Do you accept the Cannibalism paradigm?

So when you say

“If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend.”

What you mean is an atheist evolution. You have no problem with evolution by intelligent design. Is that right?

If so, it seems to me that the better claim is evolution presupposes order which presupposes God. The idea that evolution is false is an anti-Christ idea in that Christ is associated with transcendence which is associated with evolution. I mean, Jesus used words like “chosen”. To be chosen within a static, non-evolutionary framework would be an unjust, violent idea. Again, an anti-Christ idea since Christ is associated with justice.

Intelligent design is not evolution by natural selection, at least not solely.

I should’ve been more careful. God + natural selection then.

Young Earth Creationism

According to Young Earth Creationism (YEC), a faithful reading of Scripture commits Christians to accepting that the earth is young, between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. YEC claims that Scripture is not compatible with the idea that humans share common ancestry with other life forms on earth, and most YEC proponents feel that evolution is a direct threat to Christianity.


Old Earth Creationism

According to Old Earth Creation (OEC), the scientific evidence for the great age of the earth (4.6 billion years) and universe (13.7 billion years) is strong. This view typically maintains that the days of creation in Genesis 1 each refer to long periods of time. OEC does not accept the common ancestry of all life forms, often opting instead for a theory of progressive creation in which God miraculously created new species at key moments in the history of life.


Intelligent Design

In contrast to EC, YEC, and OEC, Intelligent Design (ID) does not explicitly align itself with Christianity. It claims that the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe and of the development of life is a testable scientific hypothesis. ID arguments often point to parts of scientific theories where there is no consensus and claim that the best solution is to appeal to the direct action of an intelligent designer. At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena.


Evolutionary Creation

We at BioLogos maintain that the scientific evidence from many branches of modern science would make little sense apart from common ancestry and evolution. We also believe that the cultural and theological contexts in which Scripture was written are key for determining the best interpretation of the creation accounts.


Source: Biologos (Dr Francis Collins' site, he of the Human Genome Project). Biologos has many articles that claim to show consistency between science and Christianity, and has articles specifically addressing Lisle's claims.

https://biologos.org/common-question...d-creationism/

Thanks for sharing this, BF! I'll give it a read.

I don't know if I accept that paradigm or not, since I've never heard of it. Is that term a reference to the Lord's Supper? Please explain what you mean by that. Thanks.

I have a problem with any theory that incorporates Transpeciation( i.e. one specie evolving into a new specie).

That seems like a fine definition.

I hope you can see why that definition coupled with this claim

and this one

leaves me confused.

Uh, you've never heard of Christianity, which I mockingly refer to as the Cannibal paradigm?

That is correct, I've never heard of Christianity.

Have a good day, Skippy!

Given that evolution is the most important theory of modern biology, it is obviously not anti-science.

The rest of the argument is a potpurri of words with little to no actual meaning.

I mean, you could argue that science is fallible, and therefore the possibility that God snapped his fingers and willed the world into existence 10000 years ago can’t be discounted, but so what? That’s just a god the gaps. You can produce countless of those. You can argue that welding is actually a summoning of elder evils that magically fuse metal together. It is a pretty useless argument.

Well, then answer my questions.

Hi, OP.

Please answer post #14, then I will gladly answer your post #17. Thanks.

Evolution is a real thing. Species evolve. The question is: What evidence is there that a member of one specie has evolved into a new specie?

A number of important biologists, such as the late Stephen J. Gould, rejected gradualism due to the paucity of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Another rescuing device for macro evolution is Transpermiation.

Nobody in this thread is advancing a "God of the Gaps" argument.

I very clearly said that "Cannibal paradigm" is how I'm referring to Christianity. I assume you know what Christianity is. Not sure what else I need to explain.

Looks like we're done here.

Have a great weekend!