Arguments Creationists Should NOT use featuring Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
- Has anyone else watched this DVD? I am new to this Creation/Evolution
debate and just watched this DVD. Great material! I have a lot of
respect for men like DR. Sarfati who lead the way.
I see Dr. Sarfati has written several books. I will be sure to locate
his other material.
- On 5 Jul 2005 at 2:28, lieutenantofthetower wrote:
> Has anyone else watched this DVD? I am new to thisHe's a quack. If you like his material, I have two bridges on
> Creation/Evolution debate and just watched this DVD. Great
> material! I have a lot of respect for men like DR. Sarfati who
> lead the way.
> I see Dr. Sarfati has written several books. I will be sure to
> locate his other material.
the east coast you might want to buy.
> Read it for yourself - "Refuting Compromise" (See it forI haven't noticed anything particularly scientific about any of
> yourself why the RTB staff will not comment on Dr. Sarfati's
> scientific and logical arguments and Biblical critique of the
> teachings of Dr. Ross and his devoted followers.) GO TO:
"The theory that Lerner and other materialists are really
promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that
particles turned into people over time, without any need for an
intelligent designer. This �General Theory of Evolution� (GTE)
was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as �the theory that all
the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source
which itself came from an inorganic form.�1"
Sarfati loves to critique this straw man. Actually science has
nothing to say about what (if anything) has been God's input into
the history of the evolution of life. The only thing science can
discuss is the real, physical evidence and that does not reveal
God's hand to us. There is no really good theological reason
that it should. You see, revelation is full of arguments that
would seem to be urging us to take God on faith and to NOT try to
test Him like some lab rat.
So, it seems that Sarfati's principle objection to the science of
evolution is that it won't do what science can never do and what
is, in any case, forbidden in scripture. Interesting religion
this man has!
Here is another example of his reasoning:
"The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes
occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the
change (so we would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-
evolution). The key issue is the type of change required � to
change microbes into men requires changes that increase the
genetic information content, from over half a million DNA
�letters� of even the �simplest� self-reproducing organism to
three billion �letters� (stored in each human cell nucleus).
Nothing in Lerner�s paper (or anywhere else) provides a single
example of functional new information being added. To claim that
mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is
like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them
for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for
the GTE "
Now I can understand why na�ve non-scientists make this argument
but anyone with even a layman's knowledge of modern genetics
knows that some mutations actually copy whole genes (sometimes
even whole chromosomes but rarely in animals). Such mutations
create redundant information in the genome and are not usually
detrimental. More to the point, they provide writing space that
is not dangerous so that subsequent mutations to the same gene
can occur without disabling some functioning system. Doolittle
has shown that this is exactly how the clotting system in
lobsters arose--from the gene for egg yolk protein.
Sarfati is a typical young-earth creationist. He has a glib line
and a quick argument but the bottom line is that he is saying
that all of the physical geologists, paleontologists, astronomers
etc. who contradict him on the age of the universe are either
dishonest or incompetent and only a tiny handful of young-earth
creationists are the only honest or competent scientists in the
If you believe this, then, I do suggest you consider investing in
And you complain about 'compromise' in religion. How can an
apologetic that is riddled with false witness against honest
scientists be anything BUT a compromise with evil?
God is an evolutionist.