Where we created by Religion or Evolution (353)

Airpressure at about 4.3 psi versus 14.7 psi

I guess that sudden stop might wake you up a bit.

There is the limit of common sense. And since the evidence does not match evolution, Darwinists resort to wild speculation.

If the fossil record and DNA are such strong evidence, what do you need "Punctuated Equilibrium for"?

It is interesting to see how tenaciously Darwinists stick to their guns.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life (which has given birth to postmodernism), in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." Richard Lewontin (Darwinist from Harvard University)

Why would Darwinists not want to “allow a divine foot in the door”? Here are four major reasons:

#1 By admitting God, Darwinists would be admitting that they are not the highest authority when it comes to truth. Currently, in this technologically advanced world, scientists are viewed by the public as the revered authority figures – the new priests who make a better life possible and who comprise the sole source of objective truth. Allowing the possibility of God would be to relinquish their claim of superior authority.

#2 By admitting God, Darwinists would be admitting that they don’t have absolute authority when it comes to explaining causes. In other words, if God exists, they couldn’t explain every event as the result of predictable natural laws. Richard Lewontin put it this way: “To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles many happen.” As Robert Jastrow (an agnostic astronomer) noted, when that happens, “the scientist has lost control,” certainly to God, and perhaps to the theologian.

#3 By admitting God, Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution (like Ardipithecus ramidus). Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.

Finally, #4 Perhaps the most significantly, by admitting God, Darwinists would be admitting that they don’t have the authority to define right and wrong for themselves. By ruling out the supernatural, Darwinists can avoid the possibility that anything is morally prohibited. For if there is no God, everything is lawful. If Darwinism is true, then you can sleep with whomever you choose. In Darwinism, there is no moral accountability. Unless you want to argue that morals are subject to natural selection as well.

Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only
a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and
says to me:‘My friend, you should blow out your
candle in order to find your way more clearly.’
This stranger was a theologian.
Diderot, Addition aux pensées philosophiques