Evolution takes a lot of faith

 46 total views,  1 views today

I’ve been chatting with a guy in Facebook about God, evolution, whether a god exists or is required. Evolution is something ground into most so strongly that it’s hard to open your eyes to see if there are any better answers.

Check out this article on evolution as anti-science: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/evolution-anti-science

Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible

One has to admit that one does not have all the answers, and therefore, we all have to understand that whatever we believe in requires faith. We are all part of a religion, the question is just whether that religion is centered on Christ or the anti-Christ

Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?
The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution.

It’s hard for people to open their eyes and see what is right in front of them, the world all around with the finger prints of God. Evolution takes at least as much faith as does believing in a creator being, more in fact is required given all the evidence when interpreted correctly

This post has already been read 1071 times!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.