Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Stoney:

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Stoney Breyer <
stoneyb AT touchwoodcreative.com> wrote:

> Karl writes:
> Science, according to the definition I was taught at a secular university
> by
> a professor who was anti-Christian and a missionary for evolution (he could
> not let a single lecture go by without at least one attack against
> Christianity), cannot deal with the past. The closest it can get to dealing
> with the past is to deal with is the present status of artifacts that have
> survived from the past.
>
> And I ask:
> Karl, doesn't the obvious contradiction between your professor's
> characterization of science and his zeal for a particular scientific theory
> of past events suggest the hypothesis that he didn't know what he was
> talking about? (—which, I must hurry to point out, does not in the least
> imply that he was not a perfectly competent scientist)
>
> Stoney Breyer
> Writer/Touchwood
>

You can ask every scientist and textbook writer that I checked at that time
the same question, as the textbook that he chose was written by other
missionaries for evolution, two famous professors teaching at Harvard, which
gives the most detailed description of scientific method and how it
differentiates between scientific studies and non-scientific studies of all
the many science textbooks I checked at that time, yet contradicted none. I
also asked other professors in the science classes I was then attending, and
they all gave the same definition for science.

Therefore my conclusion that evolution, the teaching that all life has
developed from simple common ancestors by natural means over a long period
of time as defined in both textbooks and lectures, is not a scientific
theory, has never been and will never be one. Therefore it is a religious
belief, no different from any other one based on blind faith.

Your question above is valid, and I have used variations of it when debating
the issue of evolution, on the Skeptics site (when they allowed open debate)
and anywhere else, including this board, through I usually prefix my
questioning with at least one of the textbook authors, George Gaylord
Simpson, and in over three decades have yet to receive a logical answer as
to how evolution, as defined by George Gaylord Simpson and many other
sources, can be science, as defined by George Gaylord Simpson and all other
textbooks that give a definition. The only answer that makes sense is that
they see that the only other option is to believe in creationism which, for
whatever reason, they find repugnant. Yet in their missionary zeal for their
faith, want to give it a cachet greater than mere faith, therefore they
fool, even themselves, that it is a scientific theory, and in this way act
exactly the same way as those “creation scientists” who want to claim that
creationism is also a scientific study.

This question has relevance to this list in that the Documentary Hypothesis
historically and ideationally is based on a belief in the theory of
evolution, both biological and social evolution. It is my rejection of
evolution that has led me to reject also its spawn  Documentary Hypothesis.

Karl W. Randolph.