Huckabee And Creationism
Author: Michael Kraft
This is a profound comment written on one of our other posts about Mike Huckabee’s very moving speech about religion and his beliefs in creationsism.
I can honestly say I am completely on the other side of the spectrum from Huckabee on this idea, but I was still moved to write about his very sincere response in the debate.
Passion about a subject is still passion even if I didnt agree at all.
I did agree that he delivered his beliefs with conviction I would want in my president.
This response from another similar creationist on the post was worthy of its own read. The poster describes the logic in creation through the doubt in eveolutionary theory.
“Huckabee seems to be an honest to goodness Christian. It’s a pitty that there is such controversy over the origin of man.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.
After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ’simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!”
I do publish things I dont agree with, because I do agree in the right to have your own opinions.
|
You can comment below or even write your own online article instantly right here. |
12 Responses to “Huckabee And Creationism”
leave your opinion on this subject
Or check out related stickers and shirts in the store.
Huckabee And Creationism
This is a profound comment written on one of our other posts about Mike Huckabee’s very moving speech about religion and his beliefs in creationsism.
I can honestly say I am completely on the other side of the spectrum from Huckabee on this idea, but I was still moved to write about his very sincere response [...]
 Which recent candidate do you believe has a history of working with hispanic voters? |
|
What best describes your view on the Democrat pushed bailouts of companies, banks and in general? |
|
What is the one issue your ideal candidate neds a solution for! |
Where will Romney as a Mormon shake out, up or down in the primaries?
Why can`t somebody believe in both God and evolution like I do? There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is billions of years old and alot of evidence that life did evolve over the eons. There is not a shred of evidence which even hints at the idea that the genesis account could be taken literally.
Michael,
There are actually several shreds of evidence. (see the previously recomended answers in genesis website). The problem is that anyone that presents these shreds are not considered credible. The reason they are not considered credible is because they don’t believe in evolution. So by definition, anyone that does not believe in evolution is not qualified to resent alternative theories. However if you do agree with evolution you have no reason to suggest other theories. Great logic.
Those who promote creationism/I.D. suffer from a type of fear peculiar to the small-minded: They fear that, without the over-arching protection of an agency (God) upon which to hang responsibility for their own creation and upon whose glory to hitch their destiny-wagon, they will have to fall back on their own inadequate devices to determine right from wrong. Surely, being mere humans (although claiming the apex of creation), we cannot possibly have any way to determine right from wrong without the omniscient guidance of a God – “Great Sky-Father” – who himself exhibits the manners and ethics of a spoiled child.
Answers in Genesis is a know group that distorts evidence. Ken Ham and his brother is distortion Kent Hovind are known for their need to lie to their audiences about the scientific evidence. Those who have actually been educated in the sciences relating to and affected by evolution overwhelming agree that the biological process of evolution is a fact. The theory of how evolution happens is constantly being studied, researched and modified. On the other hand, Creationism never changes. It has to match the Bible. There is no other choice for the believer. This is the prime reason it is not science. It can not be falsified.
There is zero credible evidence for creation. It is theology not science. It is fine to believe in creationism but it is massively dishonest to pretend that it is science or that there is any real evidence for it.
“If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell.”
Dullard.
Evolution is about the origin of the diversity of life NOT the origin of life itself.
Helps when one addresses the actual argument instead of a straw man.
“Evolution is about the origin of the diversity of life NOT the origin of life itself.”
Very well said Dune.
“Cant evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?”
– Stan Marsh – Southpark
i am really a believer in show me the evidence ad my decisions will be based upon it. To find holes in evolution doesnt mean its wrong it just means it is “unexplained” to date.
I saw a NOVA special about something similar and they discuessed mushroom paterns in Ireland. They said 800 years ago they thought it was places where “fairies” met to discuss magical things. This was because there was no explanation to the perfect geometric cirles the mushroom grew in, so they had a mythical explanation.
Of course years later we know this is becaue of the way the mushroom shoots spores in a perfect circle that grows to create these patterns.
It wasnt a hole in the science of the time, it was an explanation that was not yet completed by science.
All holes will be explained in time, evolution is just incomplete and in progress as a theory but has prett solid ground already.
It is quite simple really.
All creationists fall into one of three groups, which may overlap.
1] They are ignorant – which is cureable.
2] They are stupid – which is not cureable
3] They are liars – and doing it for political and religious power – which is despicable.
“If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell.”
Well they are well on the way. They have already produced a couple of viruses out of non-living chemicals available on the internet, that work. But I will tell you something when they succeed (not all people consider a virus to be living, it is not a cell), this will not end the argument. The creationists will move the goal posts.
Creationists may aspire to move the “goal posts” of this conflict all they want, but they are not in charge of said goal posts. They cannot win their perceived argument by vetting their own posited “theory” from within any frame of reference not recognized by the scientific community.
In other words: Pull yer head out, Bubba, and read a book now an’ agin. And not just one with lots of purty pitchers.
Duh. Or no duh. As may apply.
Amazing isn’t it how those who believe in Evolution spend most of their time defending evolution by bashing Creationists?
Amazing isn’t it how those who believe in Creationism spend most of their time defending creationism by bashing Evolutionists?
“If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell.”
First of all, evolutionists don’t need to “assemble” a living cell to confirm the theory of evolution any more than astronomers need to assemble a planet to confirm the theory of gravity.
Secondly, assuming that scientists are unable to produce a living cell in the laboratory (and that is a big assumption considering recent advancements) this still does not mean that what cannot be done in a few years in a lab by mere human beings can also not be accomplished over the course of billions of years in a (for all intents and purposes) infinite universe by unparralled forces.
Thirdly, no one (with half a brain) is calling any living cell truly simple. On the contrary, thanks to science we know that life is nearly endlessly complex. That is why we needed and developed the theory of evolution (and its subsidiary theories) in the first place.
In fact, let’s pull a Mount Carmel: the evolutionists can pull their best minds together and produce a living cell, the Creationists can do the same. Let’s see who’s fire burns first.
Finally, I’m Quaker; I don’t need proof for my faith, and I wouldn’t be a good stewart if I didn’t learn the inner workings of my master’s house. Science offers me that possibility.
Whether or not evolution proves correct in the long run (and I suspect that it may), it is a facinating theory that shows that the Creator (whoever or whatever force he/it may be) is truly worthy of the intense study and observation our brilliant and committed scientists are conducting on a daily basis.
You are right, Mr. Thurber, those who profess evolution should not “bash” those who profess creationism. It simply isn’t necessary.. the science speaks for itself!