COME abbiamo visto, la quantità di prove a favore della creazione è enorme. Perché, dunque, molti rifiutano la creazione e accettano l’evoluzione? Un motivo è ciò that was taught them in school. The texts of science argue almost always evolutionary views. Rarely, if ever, the student is informed of the arguments against. Indeed, one usually makes sure that the arguments adverse changes do not appear at all in school textbooks.
2 Writing in the journal American Laboratory, a doctor says the following regarding the school education of his children: "The boy evolution is not presented as a theory. Already in the science textbooks used in elementary school (I rely on what I read in the textbooks of my children) are made veiled statements. Evolution is presented as a fact, not as a concept that could cast doubt. The authority of the educational system requires, therefore, to believe so. " About higher education in evolutionary, this doctor says: "The students are not allowed to have or express belief: if it does, is the object of ridicule and criticism from the teacher. Often the non-conformist student is penalized in terms of profit and receives lower ratings ".1
3 The evolutionary ideas permeate not only schools but all the teaching of science and other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, journal articles, films and television programs refer to it as a fact. We often hear or read phrases like: 'When man evolved from lower animals' or 'Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans'. So people are conditioned to accept evolution as fact, and contrary evidence unnoticed. The weight of authority
4 When teachers and scientists to cry assert that evolution is a fact and suggest that only one jurisdiction could not believe how many outsiders dare contradict them? One of the main reasons why evolution is accepted by a large number of people it is this authority that is made to weigh in his favor. A classic
5 example of how we often try to intimidate the layman is given by this statement from Richard Dawkins: "The Darwinian theory is now backed up by all the relevant evidence available, and its authenticity is not questioned by any serious modern biologist" .2 But is that really so? Not at all. A little investigation will reveal that many scientists, including 'serious modern biologists', not only cast doubt on evolution, but do not believe proprio.3 believe that the evidence in favor of the creation are much more consistent. So statements such as free Dawkins is wrong. But they are typical of those who seek to silence the opposition by using in such statements. Recognising this, one observer writes in New Scientist: "Richard Dawkins, perhaps so little faith in the evidence for evolution from having to resort to statements freely and generously to liquidate those who dissent from his views?" 4
6 On the same tone The book A vision of life, evolutionists Luria, Gould, and Singer said that "evolution is a fact," and says: "[Using the same criteria] might also be doubted that the earth revolves around the sun or that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen "5 also says that evolution is a fact as the existence of gravity. But while it can be shown experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, the water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen and that the force of gravity exists, the evolution can not be proved experimentally. Indeed, these evolutionists themselves admit that "the processes and mechanisms of evolution remains a topic of heated debate" .6 But you are still heated debates on the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, the water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen or that there is gravity? No. Up to that point, then it is reasonable to assert that evolution is a fact like this?
7 In the original preface of the book by John English Reader, The missing, David Pilbeam writes that scientists do not always base their conclusions on the facts. One reason, according to Pilbeam, is that scientists "are men, and the stakes are high, because they can gain tremendous benefits in the form of fame and publicity." The book recognizes that evolution is a discipline "dominated by ambitious individuals," and speaks of "bias. . . firmly attached to the personality and the ability of their persuasive advocate. " As an example, says: "When the bias. . . are greeted with such enthusiasm and so suit the story (as in the case of man Piltdown), then science reveals a predisposition to the theory that more research. " The author adds: "They [evolutionists] are no less modern subjects of the first researchers to cling to erroneous data while supporting their preconceptions. . . [Representatives of both groups] objective assessments rejected in favor of things that 'wanted' to believe '.7 Having thus dedicated to the evolution, and wanting to make a career, some scholars are unwilling to admit the possibility of being wrong. Rather than acknowledge the facts that might be unfavorable, trying to find evidence in support of their preconceived ideas.
8 This attitude science was not noted and deplored by W. R. Thompson in his introduction centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species. Thompson said: "If the arguments do not stand up to analysis, there is no need to give their assent, and a mass conversion on the basis of arguments is to be considered regrettable." He added: "The facts and interpretations on which Darwin was based no longer convincing. The extensive research on inheritance and variation have undermined the Darwinian position "8 9
Thompson also said:" An unpleasant and long-lasting success of the Origin of Species was the habit of biologists to unverifiable speculation. . . . The success of Darwinism was accompanied by the decline of scientific integrity. " He concluded by saying: "This situation, in which men of science in defense of a doctrine that they are unable to define scientifically, much less to prove with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credibility with the public through the suppression criticism and the elimination of barriers, is abnormal and undesirable in science ".9 Similarly
10 Ostrich Anthony, professor of anthropology, has criticized his colleagues for the scientists called" a fact "the alleged descent of man from ape-like creatures. He said that "at best it is only a hypothesis, and even well documented." He notes that "there is no evidence that man has remained essentially the same as the first traces of its occurrence." The anthropologist said that the majority of employees has aligned with the supporters of evolution "for fear of not being considered serious scholars or to be kept out of academic circles that count" .10 In this regard, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also observed: " Either you believe in these concepts or is inevitably branded as heretics ".11 One consequence of this has been the unwillingness of many scientists to examine without prejudice the alternative of creation. In a letter to the editor of Hospital Practice, a reader writes: "Science has always boasted of their objectivity, but I fear that we scientists are falling victim to the biased and narrow minded that we have so much deprecated" .12
Bankruptcy religion
11 Another reason why many accept evolution is that conventional religion is unsatisfactory both in the teachings of conduct, besides the fact that they do not explain as due to the biblical account of creation . Informed people are well aware of the hypocrisy inquisitions and religious oppression and a religious background. They saw the clergy supporting bloodthirsty dictators. They know that millions of people of the same religion have killed each other in wars, while the clergy gave its support to both sides. Therefore see no reason why that should concern those of the Most religions say they represent. At this removal also contribute doctrines absurd and contrary to the Bible. Concepts such as that of eternal torment - that God in eternal torment some of his creatures in a literal hell of fire - repugnant to reasonable people.
12 However, similar teachings and religious behavior is not only repugnant reasonable people, but, as indicated by the Bible, even repugnant to God in reality the Bible clearly exposes the hypocrisy of some religious leaders. For example, says of them: "You too, outside of actually appear righteous unto men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." (Matthew 23:28) Jesus told the people that their clergy was made up of "blind guides", that did not teach the word of God, but opposed "commands of men as doctrines." (Matthew 15:9, 14) Similarly, the Bible condemns the bigoted people who "publicly declare they know God, but [that] they deny him by their deeds." (Titus 1:16) Therefore, despite their claims, the religions that have encouraged or condoned the hypocrisy and bloodshed are not caused by God or represent it. They are called "false prophets" and compared to trees that produce "worthless fruit." - Matthew 7:15-20, John 8:44, 13:35, I John 3:10-12.
13 In addition, many religions have failed regarding evolution, thus leaving their people with no alternative. For example, Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The overall development, including the human body, seems the most likely scientific explanation of origins" .13 At a seminar organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, twelve scholars who represent the highest scientific body of the Catholic Church have come to this conclusion: "We believe that the accumulation of evidence permits, beyond any serious dispute, to apply the concept of evolution to man and other primates' .14 With this endorsement of religion, what chance is there that the faithful would be contrary to uninformed, even when, as in this case, the "accumulation of evidence" does not support evolution, but on the contrary, the creation ?
14 The vacuum that this causes is often filled agnosticism and atheism. By abandoning the faith in God, people accepted as alternative to evolution. Today, in some countries, based on the evolution atheism is even the official position of the state. The responsibility of this irreligious spirit is largely due to the religions of the world.
15 There are certain religious doctrines that lead people to believe that the Bible contains teachings unscientific and therefore reject the God of the Bible. For example, as mentioned in an early chapter, some people mistakenly claim that the Bible says the earth was created in six literal days of 24 hours and that he only 6,000 years. But the Bible does not teach.
'Seeing is believing' Some
16, according to the saying 'seeing is believing', they refuse to be honest the idea of \u200b\u200ba Creator. Perhaps they think that if something can not be seen or measured in some way, it means that there is. It is true that in everyday life accept the existence of many things not seen, such as electricity, magnetism, radio waves and the force of gravity. However, this does not change their opinion, because all these things can be measured or observed with some other physical means. But there is no physical means to see or measure a Creator God
17 However, as we saw in previous chapters, there are strong reasons to believe in of an invisible Creator, because we can see the evidence visible, physical results of his work. We see them in technical perfection and complexity of the atomic structure in the universe marvelously arranged in the unique planet Earth, in the wonderful way in which living things are made and the amazing human brain. Are all effects that must have required an adequate cause. The same materials accepted the principle of cause and effect in all other fields. Why should not also apply to the physical universe?
18 It is clear the simple reasoning that makes the Bible: 'The quality of the unseen Creator, even his eternal potenza e Divinità, si vedono chiaramente fin dalla creazione del mondo, perché si comprendono dalle cose fatte’. (Romani 1:20) In altre parole, la Bibbia parte dall’effetto per giungere alla causa. La creazione visibile, le meravigliose “cose fatte”, è un evidente effetto che richiede una causa intelligente. Questa causa invisibile è Dio. E in qualità di Fattore di tutto l’universo, il Creatore possiede senza dubbio una così enorme potenza che gli uomini di carne ed ossa non possono aspettarsi di vedere Dio e continuare a vivere. Come dice la Bibbia, ‘nessun uomo può vedere Dio e vivere’. — Esodo 33:20.
Un’altra importante ragione so many do not believe
19 There is another important reason why many abandon their faith in God and accept evolution. Many are suffering in existence. Over the centuries have seen many injustices, acts of oppression, crime, war, disease and death. Many do not understand why the human family will be torn down these difficulties. They believe that an omnipotent Creator would not have permitted. Therefore, since these conditions exist, they conclude that God does not exist. In the theory of evolution, therefore they see the only possible alternative, and often accepted at face value.
20 Why would an omnipotent Creator allowed all this suffering? It will always be so? The answer to this problem, once understood, will understand the rationale, the real reason why nowadays the theory of evolution is so widespread.
0 comments:
Post a Comment