Hello fellow TWebbers,
Below, I bring to your attention, a CMI article which, in opposition to creation scientists at ICR, suggests that creationists should not be afraid of natural selection.
There is an admission amongst creationists that such an acceptance is failing to give due Glory to God who is master of his whole creation.
And right they are. EVERY Biblical Creationist knows that kind gives rise to kind. The Bible makes no mention of natural selection and speciation. Yet here we have this creation scientist trying to undercut what is so patently obvious to true Creationists.
This is an outright appeal by certain creation scientists to accept Natrualism
Gasp. Shock. Horror
Here is the offending article:-
The fact of natural selection
CMI Creation scientist says that natural selection is a fact, in opposition to creationist scientists like Dr Randy Guliuzza of ICR --- but this might make people think he supports naturalism, and natural processes.
This article from CMI illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Natural Selection Sacred Cow (NSC).
Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
I have the following all-encompassing comment:
If creation "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if creation "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if creation "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing?
However, I know all-too-well that the Natural-Selection-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Natural-Selection-Flock.
.
.
The CMI article asserts that creationists ”should not be afraid of natural selection and thus abandon the concept to evolutionists.” and is written by noted creationist Dr Jonathan Sarfati. He’s pushing for a general acceptance of what he says is Natural Selection (NS).
Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of naturalism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "NS" or “NSC” is essentially a new naturalistic idea that rejects some of the core tenets of Biblical Creationism (like the views that natural selection coupled with mutation, can bring about altered genes and so cause speciation even going so far as to bring about new genera and new families, so long as it’s not molecules to man evolution). The CMI article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some creationists avoid accepting natural selection lest they end up taking “from the Glory of God, who is lovingly sovereign over all His creation.”
FROM THE CMI ARTICLE:
"To be blunt, we think Dr Guliuzza of ICR is just wrong about natural selection. I discussed this with a couple of his colleagues a couple of years ago. Since that discussion, another ICR scientist, geneticist Dr Nathaniel Jeanson, has written a powerful critique of Dr Guliuzza’s idea.1
CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct.”
“But here I must agree with Darwin, who pointed out
No one objects to chemists speaking of ‘elective affinity’ and certainly an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved."
With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you. 
WOW !!!  
Roland. (Here endeth the screeching and hysteria)
Below, I bring to your attention, a CMI article which, in opposition to creation scientists at ICR, suggests that creationists should not be afraid of natural selection.
There is an admission amongst creationists that such an acceptance is failing to give due Glory to God who is master of his whole creation.
And right they are. EVERY Biblical Creationist knows that kind gives rise to kind. The Bible makes no mention of natural selection and speciation. Yet here we have this creation scientist trying to undercut what is so patently obvious to true Creationists.
This is an outright appeal by certain creation scientists to accept Natrualism
Gasp. Shock. Horror
Here is the offending article:-
The fact of natural selection
CMI Creation scientist says that natural selection is a fact, in opposition to creationist scientists like Dr Randy Guliuzza of ICR --- but this might make people think he supports naturalism, and natural processes.
This article from CMI illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Natural Selection Sacred Cow (NSC).
Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
I have the following all-encompassing comment:
If creation "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if creation "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if creation "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing?
However, I know all-too-well that the Natural-Selection-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Natural-Selection-Flock.
.
.
The CMI article asserts that creationists ”should not be afraid of natural selection and thus abandon the concept to evolutionists.” and is written by noted creationist Dr Jonathan Sarfati. He’s pushing for a general acceptance of what he says is Natural Selection (NS).
Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of naturalism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "NS" or “NSC” is essentially a new naturalistic idea that rejects some of the core tenets of Biblical Creationism (like the views that natural selection coupled with mutation, can bring about altered genes and so cause speciation even going so far as to bring about new genera and new families, so long as it’s not molecules to man evolution). The CMI article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some creationists avoid accepting natural selection lest they end up taking “from the Glory of God, who is lovingly sovereign over all His creation.”
FROM THE CMI ARTICLE:
"To be blunt, we think Dr Guliuzza of ICR is just wrong about natural selection. I discussed this with a couple of his colleagues a couple of years ago. Since that discussion, another ICR scientist, geneticist Dr Nathaniel Jeanson, has written a powerful critique of Dr Guliuzza’s idea.1
CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct.”
“But here I must agree with Darwin, who pointed out
No one objects to chemists speaking of ‘elective affinity’ and certainly an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved."
With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you. 
WOW !!!  
Roland. (Here endeth the screeching and hysteria)
Comment