@Sean_McDowell hosts Richard Weikart to explore Darwins evolutionary theory & whether it is influencing current white nationalist movements today. https://t.co/3OyPP7yzKJ
— Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture (@DiscoveryCSC) June 17, 2022
We are now experiencing the environmentalists Earth religion through higher energy prices. Now, ‘A number of environmentalists have called for the rewilding of the countryside, which includes a substantial percentage of productive farmland. Their desire is to reintroduce larger predatory mammals to the land, to let forests grow uncontrolled, and restrict farming. Along with this are calls for human beings to use alternative foods made of bacteria, insects or fungi. In this regard, there is a rejection of the biblical dominion mandate, and instead they hold to one based upon a different foundational commitment, namely a form of naturalism.
This elitist ‘green utopianism’ would change our understanding of the role that people play in the world; it would diminish human rights, and the quality of life for the majority.’https://creation.com/rewilding-green-utopianism
‘The origin of life is a key point of distinction between the Creationist and Darwinist schools of thought.
Creationists believe that God created all forms of life on earth (including humans), endowing non-living matter with life through a deliberate, supernatural act. In contrast, naturalists typically believe that life descended from a single self-replicating protocell which in turn came into existence through spontaneous chemical reactions. This atheistic theory for the origin of life is commonly known as abiogenesis (Greeka “without”, bios “life”, and genesis “beginning, origin”).
Both views require an extraordinary or miraculous event. To date, scientists have not observed abiogenesis happening in nature, nor have they been able to create a lifeform through controlled experiments, which is why biogenesis, the opposite of abiogenesis, is considered a scientific law. In fact, reaction conditions resembling the Earth’s early conditions have even failed to produce the most basic polymers that all lifeforms possess (protein, DNA, RNA, etc.). It is now understood that the probability of even a single protein forming through purely natural processes exceeds what is acceptable based on the law of probability. It is also important to understand that and the origin of life in reliant upon chance alone, since natural selection could play no part until a self-replicating cell had been formed. Jonathan Sarfati states:
“
Also, when it comes to the origin of first life, natural selection cannot be invoked, because natural selection is differential reproduction. That is, if it worked at all, it could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition, it could not work on non-living chemicals. Therefore, chance alone must produce the precise sequences needed, so these simulations do not apply. .[1]
”
The probabilities of life forming through purely random processes is so remote that Darwinists are at a complete loss for an explanation. To avoid the issue they often insist that the origin of life and biological evolution are separate issues. However, theory of evolution must (and does) include a theory of the origin of life, much as stellar evolution also postulates a mechanism for the birth of stars. It therefore appears that intelligent design is more reasonable explanation for the existence of life than the evolutionary model. At present, each model still requires faith and currently falls outside of the realms of science since neither has been observed nor have they been proven by experimentation.’https://www.nwcreation.net/course/origin_or_life.html
whatyareckon 