駁斥創造論的15+N個瞎說

謙益

　　回應：「演化論已經有了化石證據做為證明，而且已經有人設計出來了實驗來驗證物種的演化，而且還證實了演化是個正確的理論，既然已經以實驗來證實了，那他就已經不只是單純的信仰了！」

謙益

LUCIFEROUS增補：

　　這根本是視邏輯為無物的蠢人才會講才會信的蠢話，就算演化論比創造論所污衊的爛上一百萬倍，也絲毫不會讓創造論本身變成事實。

　　就有如一個強盜說另外一個人為殺人魔王，就算此人比殺人魔王還壞上一百萬倍，強盜本身也不會變成好人。

謙益

　　那也要看是在什麼課來教，科學在教的是如何藉由觀察假設實驗來解釋未知的事物，創造論除了一個神創萬物的無知推論之外什麼都沒有，況且世上諸多宗教都有神創萬物，創造論者卻講不出憑什麼只有舊約的創世紀有資格拿到「科學」來講。

謙益

這是世紀大謊言－－

且不論這事件只是教會堆的比亞拉臘山還高的諸多假見證之一，就算達爾文死前認為自己錯了，科學上的發現也不會因為這一點而受到絲毫的影響。
_____________________________________

達爾文晚年信主與約書亞的長日
作者：書蟲

一、在基督徒間時常流傳一些未經證實的故事，「達爾文晚年信主」就是其中之一，但真相是怎樣的呢？

這是一個謠言。這個謠言始於一位叫赫普（Hope）的女士。

達爾文於１８８２年４月１９日逝世。在這時間之後不久，這位女士出席了美國麻省的一次佈道會，這佈道會是在慕迪（Dwight Lyman Moody）所開設的一所教育機構內進行的。赫普在會內宣稱，在達爾文臨終時，她訪問了他，當時「他正在讀希伯來書，並要求當地主日學的詩班到他的避暑別墅當場獻唱。這時，他後悔地說：『我極其希望我沒有將進化論闡釋成它現在的樣子。』並繼續說：『請妳舉行一個聚會，我希望對會眾述說耶穌基督和他的救贖。』當時他正在熱切盼望能進入天堂。」

慕迪聞之，視赫普女士為至寶，鼓勵她立即發表。赫普的「見證」首先見於波士頓的《Watchman Examiner》，隨即廣為在基督教圈子流傳，令不少人信以為真（包括 John Fok）。達爾文的女兒亨里雅塔（Henrietta）在一九二二年為此發表聲明：

「在我父親臨終時，我守在他的身旁。在他重病不治時，或在他得其他病時，赫普女士都不在。我相信我的父親從未見過她，她對我父親的思想、信仰沒有任何的影響。我父親對他的任何科學觀點，不論是當時的還是早些時候的，從未反悔過。我們認為有關他後悔的故事是在美國編造出來的。……整個故事純屬無稽之談。」

兩位「科學創造論者」 W.H. Rusch, Sr. 和 J.W. Klotz 在研究了這件事之後發表了一 本３８頁的研究成果，對達爾文有以下的評論：

「他以人的思想為自己的權威，這使他脫離正教，再由有神論者變成不可知論者。其實，說他是一個無神論者卻是合適不過。他很謹慎地發現，由科學出發，他永遠不能證明神的存在，因此他認為稱自己為一個不可知論者是最妥當的。」雖然有強力的反駁，但一百年來，這故事不斷以不同的方式在流傳著，我不認為我們可以用「誠實」二字來形容散播謠言的人。

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

補充一點，達爾文的<<回憶錄>>更說基督教是“該死的教義”：

達爾文<宗教觀點>

著者:達爾文(1809-1882),英國博物學家,著作有<<物種起源>>,<<人類的由來及性選擇>>等
達爾文的<<回憶錄>>最初成於他逝世六個月後,由他的兒子法朗士刪改,摘錄,謄抄出來,而達爾文的夫人愛瑪亦曾事先審閱了這篇回憶,並刪去了他宗教觀上多處重要之處。

然而這篇回憶忠實反映了達爾文的宗教觀點,是達爾文在去世那一年最後改定的,很大程度上表達了達爾文晚年對基督教迷信的痛恨,他把基督教和伊斯蘭教和印度教相提並論;把兒童信仰上帝比擬作猿類怕蛇的本能;甚至痛斥基督教教義為“這真是一種該死的教義”,反映了達爾文多麼希望家長們不要把這類宗教迷信傳給子孫。這篇回憶,更是對基督徒無恥地誣蔑達爾文晚年悔改信主的有力駁斥。

在這兩年內,我必須對宗教問題作很多的思考。我在貝格爾艦航行期間,完全是信奉正教的,而且我還記得,當時我在幾個軍官(雖然他們也信奉正教)面前談論到某一個道德問題時,就引用了<<聖經>>中的詞句,把它看做是天經地義的權威言論;他們聽了卻一齊哈哈大笑起來。我以為,他們是因為我這個論據新奇,所以覺得好笑。可是,在這段期間內,就是在1836年到1839年間我卻逐漸意識到,由於<<舊約全書>>中有明顯的偽造世界歷史事實,有巴比倫塔和作為約言徵兆的神聖光環等等,還有硬認為上帝具有暴君般的殘暴心,因此就認為它的內容並不比印度教們的聖書更加高明些,更加值得使我相信。當時這個問題,總是在我腦海中折磨著,難以消除:要是上帝現在賜給印度教一個啟示,那麼我們是否可以相信,上帝已經准許把這個啟示,同毗濕紐和濕婆等的信仰聯結在一起,也好像把基督教和<<舊約全書>>聯結在一起了呢?我以為,這是完全不可相信的。

我又作了進一步的思考,就是:必須要有最明顯的證據,才能使任何一個頭腦健全的人去相信那些作為基督教支柱的奇蹟;我們越是對自然界的法則知道得更多,就越是對奇蹟變得更加不可信賴;古代的人們,是多麼愚昧無知,多麼易於妄信簡直使我們無法理解我們也無法證實,<<福音書>>是在其中事件發生的同時記寫下來的我以為,這些事件的許多重要細節,都記述得不符真相,過於嚴重,因而可以認為,這是當場目擊者常有的過失我根據上述這一類思考,認為它們毫不新奇,也毫無價值,但是對我卻起有影響;因此,我逐漸變得不再相信基督教是神凡啟示了。我還以為,有一個事實頗為重要,就是:在世界上大多數地區,還在傳佈著很多虛假的宗教,好像是一種制服不住的野火,<<新約全書>>中所講的道德無論有多麼的高尚,卻未必可以否定說,它的完善,一部份是依賴於我們對其中隱喻和喻寓言所堵增添的注釋。

可是,我卻很不願意放棄自己的信仰;我確實有這種想法,因為我能否清楚地記得,我時常再三地墜入幻想的夢境,好像是在龐貝或者在其他地點,發現了某些著名的古代羅馬人的書簡或手稿,它們可以使人非常驚奇地證實了<<福音書>>中所講到的一切事件。可是,甚至是在我的想像力所能達到的自由境界中我仍舊越來越難以想出自己信服的証據來。因此,不信神就以很緩慢的速度侵入我的頭腦中而且最後終於完全不信神了。可是,這個過程的速度很緩慢,使我毫無痛苦的感受,甚至從那時起連一秒鐘也沒有使我去懷疑自己的結論是否正確。而且實際上我恐怕還不能夠理解到無論什麼人怎樣希望基督教的教義成為真情實事;因為如果它是這樣的話,那麼<<福音書>>中簡明私經文大概就表明:不信神的人們,其中應當包括我的父親,哥哥和幾乎所有我的親密好友都將會受到永世的懲罰了。

這真是該死的教義!

雖然在我一生很晚的時期,我還沒有對上帝本身的存在作過很多思考,但是在這裡我可以提出一些不可避免會發生的模糊的結論。從前柏行根據自然界中存在著預定的設備而得出的論據,使我覺得是千真萬確的;但是現在,由於已經發現了自然選擇法則,他的論據也就無效了。例如,瓣鰓綱軟體動物的美妙的鉸合部,一定是某一個有理智的神所創造的,也好像門窗鉸鏈是人類所創造的。大概在生物的變異性和自然選擇方面,並不需要比括風私方向方面有更多的設計。自然界中的一切事物都是依從堅固不破的法則而產生的。可是,我已經在<<動物和植物的變異>>一書凡末段中討論了這個問題;據我所知,這部書中提出的論據,從未遭到過任何的反駁。

可是,如果把我們到處可見的無數美妙的適應情形擱下不談,那麼仍舊可以提出一個問題:怎樣去解釋世界上証般都有效果良好的安排呢?確實有一些作家,由於見到世界上存在著大量痛苦的事實而異常激動,因而發生懷疑,在考慮到一切有感覺的生物時,究竟其中悲痛的多呢,還是幸福的多?整個說來,現在的世界究竟是良好的呢?還是惡劣的?依照我的看法,顯然無疑,幸福佔有優勢,不過要證明這一點,卻也困難。如果認為這個結論是正確的,那麼就必須承認,它會完全符合於我們可以預料到的那些由自然選擇所產生的結果。如果某一物種的所有個體都經常受到極大的痛苦,那麼它們就不會再去傳種接代了。可是,我們亳無理由去相信,這種情永遠不斷地在發生,或者至少是時常發生。此外還有另一些想法,會使人認為,按照一般規律,一切有感覺的生物,都是為了享受幸福而形成起來的。

如果也像我的想法一樣,每個人都相信,所有生物的一切肉體器官和思維器官(除了那些對其所有者既無利也無害的器官以外),是借助自然選擇(即最適者生存)的途徑以及使用(即習慣)的作用而發育起來,那麼,他就應該承認,這些器官,是由於其所有者在同其他生物進行競爭時可以取而形成的,因而其數量也增加起來了。因此,一種動物,在受到痛苦(例如傷痛,饑餓,口渴和恐懼)或者快樂(例如吃食和喝飲,還有繁育後化的過程)時,或者是在苦樂兼受(例如尋覓食物)時,就不得不去選擇一種對自己種族最有利的行動方式。可是,傷痛或者其他一種痛苦,如果長期繼續發生下去,就會引起機能降低和活動能力減少,但是這也很適於使生物防護自身,而避免任何一種突發的奇災大禍。另一方面,愉快的感覺,可以長久繼續下去,毫無降低機能的作用;這種感覺反而能使整個機體系統的活動增強。因此也就發生了這樣的結果:大多數或全部有感覺的生物,都這樣借助於自然選擇方法而發育成長,因而愉快的感覺也就成為它們慣常的指南。這一點,可是從下面一個事例中看出:我們的體力和智力勞動增強(有時甚至於是極其顯著的增強)時,就會使自己發生愉快的感覺;尢其是在同他人交際時,在愛戀自己家中的親屬時就會發生這種愉快情形。我簡直確信無疑,這一類成為習慣的或經常重複的愉悅的總和,就會使大多數有感覺的生物獲得幸福更加多於悲傷,不過有很多生物偶然也會遭受到很多痛苦。造種痛苦,符合於自然選擇的信念:自然選擇的作用,並不完善,它只不過有利於每個物種,在異常複雜而且變化多端的環境條件下同其他物種進行生存鬥爭時,盡可能取得勝利罷了。

有一個無可爭辯的事實,就是:現象的世界上存在著很多痛苦。有幾位研究家曾經企圖從人類方面來解釋這個事實,他設想:痛苦似的會改善人類的道德。可是,世界上的人口數字,在同其他有感覺的生物相比時還是微乎其微,而他們時常不得不遭受十分嚴重的痛苦,這卻是與改善道德毫無關係。像上帝創造宇宙萬物的一身種威力強大和智識豐富的生物,使頭腦遲鈍的我們看來,好像是全能的和全知的,並且在我們意識中產生出一種推測,以為上帝並不是恩德無量的,因為有幾億兆低等動物,它們在幾乎無限長久的歲月中所受到的痛苦,佔有了多麼主要的地位,對嗎?我認為,由於世界上存在著痛苦,這種不承認存在一個有理性的造物主的很古老的論據,是強有力的,同時,正如剛才已經指出過,這種存在大量痛苦的情形,是很符號於這樣一個觀點,就是:一切生物都借助變異和自然選擇方法而發肯成長。

現在,支持有理性的上帝存在的一種最常用的論據,是來自多數人所體驗到的那種存在於內心深處的信念和感情,可是,不必去懷疑,印度教徒,伊斯蘭教徒等,也可能用同樣方式和同力量,去承認獨一的神或很多的神的存在,或者也像佛教徒之類認為,任何一個神都不存在。還有很多未開化的民族,可以令人信服地肯定說他們也信奉著我國所謂神的形象:實際上,他們相信靈魂或者鬼;正如泰勒和赫伯特&#8231;斯賓塞指出,可以去解釋這類信仰大概是怎樣發生的。

從前,正像上面剛才所說的這些感情,曾經使我堅信上帝存在和靈魂不滅(不過我以為,我的宗教感情從來沒有強烈發展過)。我曾經在<<考察日記>>中寫:當我身處在一座巴西森林的華麗景色中間時,"很難充分地表達出一種充滿著和激勵著我內心的驚嘆,吃驚和崇敬的高度情感的思想來。"我牢記著自己的一個信念,就是:一個人除了自己肉體的單純生命活動以外,還有著更多的東西。可是在今天,即使有最壯麗的景色,也決不會激起我頭腦中發生這類信念和感情了。確實可以說,我很像是一個已經患有色盲症的人,因此大家關於紅色存在的普遍信念,就使我現在不能感覺到紅色這個事實,無法把它作為證據,而變得毫無價值了。

要是全世界各族人民,都同樣在內心中相信唯一的上帝存在,那麼這個論點就變成正確的了;可是,我們都知道,事實決不是這樣的。因此,我認為內心的信念和感情也就毫無意義,不能作為說明上帝實際存在的證據。從前莊麗的景色曾經在我內心中激起的精神壯態,是同信仰上帝有密切關係的,在本質上也同那種時常稱做崇高美的感情狀態沒有多大區別。儘管費盡心計去說明這種感情的起源,但是仍舊難以把它提高到超過音樂所激起的那種感情的起源,但是仍舊難以把它提高到超過音樂所激起的那種強烈而模糊的類似的感情,而作為支持上帝存在的論據。


選自:
<<達爾文回憶錄>>

[ Last edited by 謙益 on 7-7-2005 at 10:53 PM ]

旋子思

　　謝謝分享。人類應該以理性來求真理，以感性來相親相愛；若對調了就大件事。

謙益

旋子思 于 16-12-2004 01:32 AM  说 :
　　謝謝分享。人類應該以理性來求真理，以感性來相親相愛；若對調了就大件事。

小弟讀了你的話也有一些感觸，加上受您的勇敢精神感化，就當自己現在喝了酒，也想把話給說直了：

一個，是用感性來追求真理，以理性來求人相愛；

另一個是賈老太太後花園的導遊，當你談感性，他就回理性，當你談理性，他就回感性．

旋子思

謙益 于 16-12-2004 01:48 AM  说 :


小弟讀了你的話也有一些感觸，加上受您的勇敢精神感化，就當自己現在喝了酒，也想把話給說直了：

一個，是用感性來追求真理，以理性來求人相愛；

另一個是賈老太太後花園的導遊，當你談感性，他就回理性 ...

　　哈哈，那他們是誰呢？
　　對了，最近怎麼沒有收到你的電郵了，呵呵。

謙益

旋子思 于 16-12-2004 01:53 AM  说 :

　　哈哈，那他們是誰呢？
　　對了，最近怎麼沒有收到你的電郵了，呵呵。

剛喝了醒酒茶，不可再亂說話．

沒有收到我的電郵？你是說大聖教的電子期刊嗎？最近在改版，因為受到友教大律師的信說我在copy他們．其實大家還不是一樣copy．．．巴比倫神話啦，埃及太陽神啦，波斯文化啦，古希臘文明．．

旋子思

謙益 于 16-12-2004 02:03 AM  说 :


剛喝了醒酒茶，不可再亂說話．

沒有收到我的電郵？你是說大聖教的電子期刊嗎？最近在改版，因為受到友教大律師的信說我在copy他們．其實大家還不是一樣copy．．．巴比倫神話啦，埃及太陽神啦，波斯文 ...

　　呵呵，這麼快就醒了？有位友人法師告訴我，若睡覺發夢會比較高興，就睡久一點；想想也是有些道理，呵呵。　
　　我是說大聖教電子方法，呵呵。電子期刊最近好像沒甚麼新意，呵呵。

慕容仰

我一直以來都堅持相信謙益是認真思考真理，堅持走近真理的人，直到他發表了大聖教的帖子後，我才不得不對他的追求真理的心改觀。

現在我開始發現他對追求真理沒有博蘭尼所說的（PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE）了，這不是指他沒有“個人知識”而是沒有“情格性知識”沒有真正的生命投入的思考、反思，為什麼我這麼說呢？

因為他常常只把反對創造論的其中一種編輯稿件貼上來，卻沒有誠實的貼出創造論者當年當時的回應。

現在我把當年的回應文章找來了，請大家站在開誠布公的角度對照參考。

http://www.apologeticspress.org/ ... 02-safull.htm#intro

看看支持進化論的人是不是真的看見了創造論者的胡說，還是他們仍然在斗拳打空氣。

補充：我不反對某種的進化形式，也不完全接受只有一套創造論，所以我還願意敞開我的生命面對個人的知情意進化和社會的“額外加力進化”。

謙益

慕容仰 于 16-12-2004 02:05 PM  说 :
我一直以來都堅持相信謙益是認真思考真理，堅持走近真理的人，直到他發表了大聖教的帖子後，我才不得不對他的追求真理的心改觀。

現在我開始發現他對追求真理沒有博蘭尼所說的（PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE）了，這不是 ...

慕容仰呀慕容仰，你除了攻擊我的人格之外，難道就想不到更好一點的應對嗎？

唐吉訶德是不是一定要有一個可以攻擊的對手才能有心靈的滿足？

即然知道我是給這裡的基督徒（其實是每一個人）受教育的機會，為什麼又要踩上一腳？

你是如斯善良又感性的人，為什麼要讓大家在這裡失望？

bigfish

謙益 于 12/16/04 14:31  说 :


慕容仰呀慕容仰，你除了攻擊我的人格之外，難道就想不到更好一點的應對嗎？

唐吉訶德是不是一定要有一個可以攻擊的對手才能有心靈的滿足？

即然知道我是給這裡的基督徒（其實是每一個人）受教育 ...

因为他的上帝说你是魔鬼!

慕容仰

請看了我的貼才回答好嗎？

我沒有攻擊你的人格，我只是要求您誠實，並且學習真正的客觀。

您如果不願意看一看別人給您的轉帖的回答，那只是說明了您的客觀是選擇性的客觀。

我可以承認所有基督徒干的壞事，也可以肯定所有基督徒干的好事，因為前者是說明我是願意反省我所有的思維和行動的，後者是我不把人當魔鬼，即使某些基督徒說他們做壞事是魔鬼教唆的，我也會要求基督徒公平的承擔自己選擇“接受魔鬼教唆”的責任。

如果您不願意正面回答，我就轉貼讓大家閱讀吧！

如果我的語氣還有衝撞的，請您原諒。

慕容仰

15 ANSWERS TO JOHN RENNIE AND
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN’S NONSENSE

by

Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

[NOTE FROM APOLOGETICS PRESS: Our monthly journal on Christian evidences, Reason & Revelation, normally is published according to a pre-arranged syllabus. Article topics are selected months in advance, and appear in a pre-determined order. The September 2002 issue, however, represented an exception. And we felt that an explanation was in order for our subscribers, and those who visit our Web site.

During the months preceding September 2002, the controversy in the United States over the teaching of creation and/or evolution became increasingly public, and increasingly hard-fought. As state legislatures, boards of education, and others in positions of authority have ventured into the fray by expressing their willingness to consider options to the teaching of organic evolution as the sole explanation for the origin of the Universe and life in that Universe, the battle over what should, or should not, be taught in public schools heightened considerably.

As of July 2002, however, evolutionists took that battle to an entirely different level. In that month’s issue of Scientific American, editor in chief John Rennie published what he intended to be a stinging rebuke of creationism, titled “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.” With a variant of vitriol and dogmatism rarely seen in the scientific arena, Mr. Rennie leveled a sustained attack on both creationism and creationists that echoed throughout the halls of academia—and far beyond. A few short weeks later, U.S. News & World Report followed suit by devoting its front cover (and a lengthy accompanying article—“The New Reality of Evolution”—by staff writer Thomas Hayden) to an in-depth defense of the “factuality” of evolution. Neither journal left any doubt about its intent, which was to caricature the concept of creationism so effectively, and to defend the concept of evolution so astutely, that the average reader would go away thinking, “Only the intellectually challenged would dare doubt the scientific validity of evolution; and only an idiot would dare defend belief in creation.”

Enough is enough! No amount of pejorative terminology on the part of editors and journalists is going to make the scientific evidence supporting creation somehow “disappear.” And no amount of intellectual snobbery on the part of materialistic scientists is going to make the woefully weak case for evolution somehow “stronger.” A significant segment of our work at Apologetics Press is devoted to the proclamation of biblical and scientific truth. And a similarly significant segment is devoted to the defense of that truth.

We therefore produced a special issue of Reason & Revelation—“Creationists Fight Back!”—that was intended to do both. The misinformation presented by the editors of Scientific American and U.S. News & World Report, as well as the erroneous conclusions that misinformation was intended to convey, need to be exposed and refuted. And the truth of the matter needs to be heard.

Our responses to these two journals, which originally appeared in the September 2002 issue of Reason & Revelation, were, by necessity, abbreviated due to severe space limitations. This article is the unabbreviated edition of our response to the Scientific American article. The unabbreviated version of our response to the U.S. News & World Report article (“Creationists Fight Back: A Review of U.S. News & World Report’s Cover Story on Evolution”) also is available. We invite your close attention to both.]

（按：這是原文照錄）

慕容仰

INTRODUCTION

The Council for Media Integrity was established June 20, 1996, and is comprised of a network of distinguished international scientists, academicians, and members of the media whose job is to serve as a “watchdog” regarding a balanced portrayal by various media outlets concerning matters related to science (see “Council for Media Integrity”). The purpose of this organization is to monitor the media for unfounded scientific claims and/or misinformation. While this association may sound like a legitimate group of noble individuals concerned about scientific truth, the fact is, it is nothing more than a group of people committed to furthering evolutionary theory and propagating media bias. One of the members of that committee is John Rennie, who, since 1994, has served as editor of Scientific American. In the July 2002, issue of that journal, Mr. Rennie—who is supposed to be monitoring unfounded claims and misinformation about science—penned an article titled “15 Ways to Expose Creationist Nonsense” (2002). The title alone speaks volumes concerning Mr. Rennie’s biased views about creationism. His belligerent attitude of scientific elitism can be seen quite clearly in an editor’s letter that appeared at the beginning of the issue, stating: “Readers of Scientific American are well placed to expose ignorance and combat antiscientific thought. We hope that this article, and a new resource center for defending evolution at www.sciam.com, will assist them in doing so” (see “Bad Science and False Facts,” 287[1]:10). Rennie previously had observed that he works primarily as a journalist, not a scientist (see “Scientific American: The Legacy Continues for 150 Years”)—and it does not take long to realize that this self-professed “journalist” is long on verbiage, but short on facts!

While Rennie’s article has been refuted and discredited by several creationists (see Hoesch, 2002; Oktar, 2002; Sarfati, 2002a), we felt our readers deserved to hear our response to this “nonsense.” We invite you to consider the following observations regarding Mr. Rennie’s article. Now, more than ever, we want our readers to be exposed to the truth regarding this matter. Furthermore, we want evolutionists to know that we can (and will!), answer their arguments—point by point. The time has now come for their “nonsense” to be exposed! Below, in bold type, are the “nonsensical” arguments that Mr. Rennie suggests creationists make. Our response follows.

待續……

慕容仰

I_dunno 于 16-12-2004 14:30  说 :
以下文章取自一个歪曲了事实的网站，所有谬论的解答全在此帖第一页，

http://www.cclw.net/book/fyynjd/htm/chapter3.html#5



我一直都很了解，客观就是不择 ...

我沒有把任何人當魔鬼，因為連上帝都沒有這樣稱呼人。

人永遠是人，永遠不可能成為魔鬼，因為是魔鬼不讓人喧賓奪主，也因為上帝不讓人自貶。

另外，謝謝您給我們這裡的年輕基督徒朋友看這樣的文字，這會讓我們學更多，以避免在沒有做足夠的功課時，說了讓人嘲笑而又沒有能力回應的話。謝謝你。

謝謝你不斷的給機會我們學習如何推進自己的信仰認識和表達信仰知識的方法－－畢竟這是一個來臨中的知識社會，我們也必定需要面對作為一個“知識份子”的呼召。

慕容仰

bigfish 于 16-12-2004 14:39  说 :

因为他的上帝说你是魔鬼!

您在引述誰的話？難道您真的聽到了上帝的聲音？難道您的“上帝”會說謙益這個正在他的人生不斷前進的人是魔鬼？

我沒有聽到這樣的聲音，您不好誣告我，這樣會讓人覺得您很虛擬的，雖然這是虛擬空間，我仍然選擇做一個真實的人，一個會犯錯，會改過，會鼓勵人，會安慰人－－有時候也需要人的安慰的人。

在現實生活中，我仍然願意和謙益作朋友，甚至做弟兄－－據他說，他之前曾經到教會，曾經幫助過基督徒。

慕容仰

1. [Creationists suggest that] evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Rennie argued that while “laypeople” may use the term theory as something that falls “in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law,” the truth is that “scientists do not use the terms that way” (2002, 287[1]:79). To support his argument, he then offered the following definition of a scientific theory from the National Academy of Sciences: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” [Keep in mind that the NAS is the same group that, in 1998, mailed its 140-page indoctrination manual, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, to every science teacher in America.]

We recognize that the definition of “theory” is itself “evolving.” What once was considered a standard textbook definition no longer is viewed as paying sufficient homage to evolutionary theory. Thus, while pro-evolution organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences may not define a theory the way most people do, we ask you to consider the definition given by scientists for scientists. For example, in her widely used Dictionary of Modern Biology, Norah Rudin defined a theory as: “similar to a hypothesis but usually wider in scope. Explanatory theories for sets of phenomena are developed by observation and experimentation” (1997, p. 367). Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines a theory as: “a reasoned explanation of the manner in which something occurs, lacking absolute proof ” (McDonough, 1994, p. 1023, emp. added). This definition is only slightly better than the one found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which says that a theory is an “abstract thought” (p. 749), and uses words like “hypothesis” and “conjecture” as synonyms.

It is these kinds of definitions of a “lack of proof ” that has brought about the need for a radically different definition of the word “theory” in the evolutionists’ camp. Evolutionists realize the necessity of changing the status of evolution from a theory to that of a fact in order to sell their theory to the general populace. They therefore expend great effort to convince people to stop speaking of the “theory” of evolution, and to speak instead of the “fact” of evolution.

To be continue……

慕容仰

But in order to accomplish this, they must redefine the word “fact” as it is used in science. And redefine they have! John Rennie is hardly the first to attempt such a redefinition. As long ago as 1965, George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck attempted such a redefinition in their biology text, Life: An Introduction to Biology, and ended their “redefining” section by claiming that theories ultimately

...may be just as certain—merit just as much confidence—as what are popularly called “facts.” Belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is the confident application of a generalization. The theory that life has evolved is founded on much more evidence than supports the generalization that the sun rises every day. In the vernacular, we are justified in calling both “facts” (1965, p. 16).

Twenty-two years later, in the January 1987 issue of the popular-science magazine Discover, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard authored a lengthy article titled “Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory.” In this particular article, Gould expressed his extreme agitation at the inability of certain people (who should know better, he said) to properly address evolution by its rightful designation—as a fact, not a theory. The specific cause (this time) for his discomfiture was an article in the September 30, 1986 issue of the New York Times by syndicated columnist Irving Kristol (“Room for Darwinism and the Bible”). Dr. Gould acknowledged both his dismay and dissatisfaction at the apparent inability of people like Mr. Kristol to distinguish (to use Gould’s own words) “the central distinction between secure fact and healthy debate about theory” (1987a, 8[1]:64). Dr. Gould then explained himself when he noted:

Facts are the world’s data; theories are explanations proposed to interpret and coordinate facts. The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun), though absolute certainty has no place in our lexicon. Theories, or statements about the causes of documented evolutionary change, are now in a period of intense debate—a good mark of science in its healthiest state. Facts don’t disappear while scientists debate theories (p. 64, parenthetical comment in orig.).

Later, Gould wrote that “...evolution is also a fact of nature, and so do we teach it as well, just as our geological colleagues describe the structure of silicate minerals, and astronomers the elliptical orbits of the planets” (p. 65).

What could be clearer? Dr. Gould wanted everyone to know that evolution is a fact. How evolution occurred may be considered by some to be merely a “theory”; that evolution has occurred is a fact not open for further discussion. Gould even commented: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally ’round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus...about the fact of evolution” (p. 69). [In a guest editorial in the August 23, 1999 issue of Time magazine, Dr. Gould boasted that “evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly as the earth’s revolution around the sun rather than vice versa. In this sense, we can call evolution a ‘fact’ ” (154[8]:59).] Gould was upset because there are those who refuse to acknowledge evolution as a fact. According to him, “evolution is a fact, like apples falling out of trees” (as quoted in Adler, 1980, 96[18]:95).

Twelve years after Dr. Gould’s Discover article was published, evolutionist Robert Pennock employed the same plan of attack in his book, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism, when he wrote:

Biologists take Darwin’s thesis of the history of descent with modification from common ancestors to be a fact. The key evolutionary mechanisms of variation by mutation and recombination, genetic inheritance, natural selection, random drift, and so on are also known to be factual. Many broad features of the evolutionary pathways are also accepted as fact. All these core conclusions are based on such overwhelming observational and experimental evidence, both indirect and direct, that it is highly unlikely that they could ever be overturned. These are all parts of evolutionary theory and they are also all facts. There are other evolutionary hypotheses that have not yet garnered sufficient evidence and whose “facthood” is still in question, especially ones having to do with particular pathways of descent or with the relative importance of natural selection versus drift, for example, as the cause of some particular biological feature. It is also accepted that the theory of evolutionary processes is incomplete, that many details of the mechanisms have yet to be worked out, and that there could be as yet unknown processes working in tandem with the known mechanisms that are important in generating the patterns of order and disorder that characterize the biological world. As research uncovers more about these processes, we can expect that new findings will supplement and refine evolutionary theory but not undermine the factual elements that the evidence has already established (1999, p. 177, emp. added).

And so, we are told, the “fact” of evolution is well established, even though there are “other evolutionary hypotheses” yet to be worked out. This is an odd turn of events. Why so?

A fact normally is defined as an actual occurrence or something that has real existence. A theory is a plausible principle or body of principles—supported by at least some facts—intended to explain various phenomena. With those standard-usage definitions in mind, consider the following in regard to evolutionary “theory.”

To be continue……

慕容仰

我在尋找他的資料時發現了這個有趣的網頁：

http://www.rae.org/paluxy.html

可以過來看看，不需要馬上支持/反對。

我也只是剛剛才到而已。