I wanted to memorialize what Karen Spivey said (If I remember it correctly):


Karen Spivey

// Science is not able to determine whether or not evolution is teleological. //

Wrong. And let’s be careful not to personify science, as though it were some kind of single-minded entity.

So, it seems that you do not understand science well, and thus, neither does Denis. How is that?

“I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directing Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief.”

• Lord Kelvin

“Science can and does point to God’s existence, and given the massive evidence for intelligent agency in our universe, it can quite reasonably be said that God’s existence is the most thoroughly proven theory in natural science.
…
To restrict causes in natural science to causes within nature itself is to impose an ideological bias on the science and thus make science a slave of ideology instead of truth. This is obviously what atheists do when they insist upon methodological naturalism..

• Neurosurgeon, Dr Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook

The fatal flaw in such claims is that evolutionary scientists ALWAYS assume design – teleology – in their research.
All while denying it.

Indeed, they have no choice to assume design and purpose. Else, no “purpose” of any biological elements can ever be deduced, which is patently absurd. As though no one can state that fly wings has the purpose of enabling flight, or that pitcher plants’ stench of rotting flesh have the purpose of attracting prey, or that brains have the purpose of thought, …

Even children can see that purpose is everywhere. But not scientists?!
Poor scientists.

As even Dawkins admits:
“The illusion of purpose is so powerful that biologists themselves USE THE ASSUMPTION OF GOOD DESIGN AS A WORKING TOOL.”

• Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden (1995) p.98

While teleology is forbidden in materialist evolution – which is neo-Darwinian evolution – the self-contradiction is salient, using the assumption of design as a working tool, cannot be avoided.

Moreover, according to every non “theistic evolutionist”, evolution is definitely NOT teleological or guided in any way. It is NOT UNDETERMINED, but absolutely DETERMINED in secular science circles. No teleology is allowed because it is automatically assumed not to exist. That is due to the crippled version of science in use, Methodological Naturalism, which is in fact, Metaphysical Naturalism in disguise as true science.

In 1978, the atheist Richard Bozarth declared in American Atheist magazine: Christianity is – must be – totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul, against the theory of evolution…. It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus’ life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam’s fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.

• G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist. (Feb. 1978, p. 19)

“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthy life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. Take away the meaning of his death: If Jesus was not the Redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is for nothing.”

• G. Richard Bozarth, in American Atheist, February, 1978, p. 30

In 1996, Frank Zindler, then president of the American Atheists, in a debate with evangelical philosopher William Lane Craig (a progressive OEC theorist), remarked:
“The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin…. If there was never an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.”

• Frank Zindler, in a debate at Willow Creek Community Church with Dr. William Lane Craig. Atheism vs Christianity (video), Zondervan, 1996.

In a 2011, posts on the American Atheist website just before Christmas, we could read,
“No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No fall of man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer.”

• “You KNOW It’s a Myth: This Season, Celebrate REASON!” American Atheists, accessed June 1, 2011

And the above was Darwin’s view.

As he exposed his own hatred of Christianity:
“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

• Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley (1983). “Autobiographies”, Oxford University Press, USA

“The more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, – that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, – that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, – that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses; – by such reflections as these… I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.” (ibid)

According to his autobiography, he later eventually concluded that the Christian faith is “manifestly false,” the Bible “false” (even stating that the Christian God was a “revengeful tyrant”), and that the Christian Scriptures were “no more to be trusted than . . . the beliefs of any barbarian”.

It is astonishing that so-called Christian evolutionists, always FAIL to grasp the true nature of evolutionism.

No wonder Christian science journalist and author, Denyse O’Leary wrote,
“Christian evolutionists, so far as I can tell, live in a sort of unreal world where one espouses Darwinism while pretending not to know what it means.”

• Science journalist and author, Denyse O’Leary

Indeed.