Part One can be read here: Arel's Atheist Assumptions Pt. 1
It has zero peer-reviewed
papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific
consensus
Zero? Does Arel actually expect his readers to take these comments
at face value? The hyperbolic language he employs ("zero"
and "absolutely no") tells us more about his personal
disdain for creation than anything substantial against it.
Perhaps he should read Biochemist Grant Lambert's “Enzymic
Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information
Transfer,” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]:387-403)
Or he could check out Willem J. Ouweneel's article “Developmental
genetics of homoeosis,” Advances in Genetics,16 [1976], 179-248).
There is also Siegfried Scherer's “Basic Functional States in
the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport,” (Journal
of Theoretical Biology, 104 [1983]: 289-299)
It's kind of like the old Tootsie Pop commercial..."Mr. Owl,
how many papers does it take to dismantle Arel's bald claims?"
Mr. Owl (leafing through his stack): "Let's see that's one, two,
three... Three."
Actually it only takes one. He did say "zero" after all.
As you may have noticed, the above articles aren't exactly fresh
off the press. There are plenty more out there for those willing to
look. Arel is either not willing to look, or is so snowballed by the
Evolutionary narrative that he has failed to even try.
If we put Arel's emotional ranting bald claims to the side for a
second we might ask the obvious question here- What interest would
secular journals have in building the creation model? News Flash-
They are committed to Darwinism! Arel's "objection" is analogous to wondering why a U.S.
Army Ranger doesn't sign up to be a deacon at the local Quaker
church. The reason is simple- it doesn't make sense boys and girls.
The reason that ICR and other creationist organizations have their
own peer-reviewed journals is for the simple reason that they have an
interest in developing a scientific model of creation, which
secularists ardently oppose. How much more obvious can this get?
and is not even considered science
due to the fact it cannot be tested.
I don't know if this is laugh out loud funny or extremely sad, or both. At the very least it is ironic. It's as though Arel is Wile E. Coyote bringing about his own demise (You know, the episode with the dynamite and the rocket). We might rightly ask Arel just
which aspects of the evolutionary model are testable? Where are these
tests and where might we find the results?
The difference between people of faith who happen to be rational,
and well, the dogmatic Darwinists is that the former understand the
issues at hand, while the latter either a) don't understand or b)
they do, but fear any real criticism or open dialogue.
Most creationists know and understand science well enough to place
creation in the category of a scientific conceptual model for the
reason that Arel mentioned above- it cannot be repeated, tested, or
observed. It is a truth claim about the unobservable past. And they
have the intellectual honesty to say so. That doesn't mean the
creation model is shot to shit, or that it is "unscientific"
as Arel implies. It simply means that as a conceptual model, it makes
use of historical-science methods. It involves utilizing theology,
philosophy, science, and history in a careful and thoughtful way to
understand the past as well as the present. As Dr. Phil Fernandez has
pointed out, creation science is very much analogous to forensic
science. It involves interpreting evidence, and that involves
philosophical assumptions and biases.
The key here is that Evolution is also a claim about the
unobservable past, and thus in the same boat as creation- at least in
a methodological sense. The qualitative difference is that despite the incessant
cheers from the throngs of zombified evolutionsists, the central
claims required for evolution to even possibly occur aren't there.
And unless we find that our collective understanding of various
scientific laws is mistaken, those claims aren't going to get
anywhere.
From my limited experience, biblical, honest, and humble,
scientific creationists are open to critiquing their colleagues as
well as revising their own theoretical framework. That is what good
science does.
Dogmatic Darwinists do just the opposite when it comes to their
precious meta-narrative of Evolution. Darwinism is to atheism what
the ring of power is to Gollum. Just try to take the ring of Darwin
from them and they will not hesitate to bite your finger off to get
it back. Yes, they are even fine with falling into the fires of Mount Doom if need be.
My...PRRRREEECIOUS!!!
