Comments

Good for you DiverCity. Maybe you could explain to the millions of Christian creationists (and to me) how you can accept both science and Christianity. I sure couldn't answer that question. If a person accepts evolution and understands it, then he must know humans are an ape species, and that we are just one branch on a vast tree of life. If a person really understands evolution, then he has to know humans are just animals, and not some big deal that a god would single out for special treatment. I'm really interested in how a christian who accepts evolution, I mean really accepts it and doesn't invoke god to help it or invent it, could remain a christian. If you or anyone else would like to answer this question I would appreciate it.

I know about Miller and I admire him. As a biologist he really understands evolution and he knows god had nothing to do with it. Why he remains a Catholic I don't understand. I strongly doubt he believes the Resurrection miracle. I doubt he believes in anything supernatural. He's too intelligent to believe that nonsense. He's an honest person so if he says he's a Christian then I believe him, but it's a big mystery to me why he would bother with it.

BobC,
You should read Dr. Francis Collins' recent book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." He is a Christian and believes in evolution, so should be able to answer the questions you pose. He is also the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, so his scientific credentials are very solid. Collins is a former atheist who came to faith after conversations with ill patients and reading "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis.

Thanks Jeff. I also know about Collins. A few months ago I was talking to a creationist I work with. He told me Collins is a creationist and I knew my friend was wrong, so I showed him a quote from Collins that proved he completely accepted evolution. The creationist I work with read it and still insisted Collins was a creationist. I don't understand how creationists think. They are sure giving your religion a bad reputation. Just like the Muslims should be speaking out against the terrorists, I think the Christians should be speaking out against the creationists. The creationists are destroying your religion. There's a very large number of them in America, about half our population. When you count the number of people who accept evolution without invoking god at all, the numbers are even worse. In a poll only 13% of Americans agreed with the statement "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." That means 87% of Americans either completely reject evolution, or they think god guided evolution. Evolution is guided by natural selection, not god. There is big problem with knowledge of science in this country and of course the reason is Christianity. You Jeff and DiverCity and others like you, might want to work on those creationists. The most powerful country in the world unfortunately has one of the dumbest populations in the world. Only 13% of Americans accepting evolution without supernatural intervention is disgraceful.

Much has been said about 'facts'. For those who are so sure of theirs I would suggest the following texts:

Who Was Adam? - Rana with Ross, NAVPRESS

Origins of Life - Rana and Ross, NAVPRESS

Creation as Science - Ross, NAVPRESS

The Genesis Question - Ross, NAVPRESS

The Creator and the Cosmos - Ross, NAVPRESS

Beyond the Cosmos - Ross, NAVPRESS

All of the above are available at Reasons To Believe, (reasons.org) and can be ordered online.

There are others but this is a start. The site is a great resource.

How come young-Earth creationists don't put their money where their mouths are?

Finding oil is a high-stakes issue for oil companies; literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. Exxon's oil exploration budget alone is close to $20 billion per year. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?

Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

Why don't young-Earth creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism, and the demonstrated proof that the theories work would be a powerful argument in favor of creationism. Why isn't anyone doing this?

Good article Rob – and nice finish. Key point is this:

“Many of us at Christian colleges really grieve at what a problem this young-earth creationism makes for the Christian witness. It’s almost like they’re adding another thing you have to believe to become a Christian. It’s like saying, You have to believe the world is flat to be a Christian, and that’s absolutely unreasonable”

And that is the real danger: the version of creation taught by YEC is damaging the Gospel. In the 1st century, one part of the church tried to shackle the gospel of Christ with circumcision – and threatened the gospel in the process. In the 21st century YEC threatens the gospel in a very similar way by shackling the message of redemption with a specific human interpretation of the scriptures.

BobC: I think both Miller and Collins are creationists – evolutionary creationists. I am as well. And yes I believe in the resurrection – so do Miller and Collins. Please don’t paint all creationists with the same broad brush.

BobC, as Steve points out, and as Rob clearly implied, young earth creationism is a problem for Christianity. I was once a young earth creationist -- perhaps as recently as 5 years ago, despite the fact I have a (non-science) doctoral degree. However, once I focused on the evidence, I came to the conclusion that the clear weight of the proof is on the side of evolution.

For one to be an evolutionist does not mean, however, that one must accept all the tenets and the world-view of materialistic, reductionist Darwinism. As you would probably agree, every culture has had its creation myth. Just so with anti-religious Enlightenment liberalism, which has Darwinism to explain how things came to be. There are even splits within the Darwinist camp, some of which resemble religion. For example, Neo-Darwinian Universalists, like Dawkins, depart considerably from classical Darwinism, believing in some kind of Zeitgeist of human progress, which is a substitute for religion (really, it is a religion). Of course, classical Darwinist evolution isn't "going" anywhere: it isn't headed towards "better" forms necessarily. It may well, according to its own terms, move to what we would consider simpler, more primitive forms. Therefore, unlike Dawkins, Gould and other neo-Darwinists, classic Darwinist evolution posits that there aren't any moral truths. But all Darwinists, being necessarily materialistic and reductionist, agree that there was no supernatural force that began or guided evolution, because it is a theory of change that excludes an intelligent agent.

So, I would agree with you that Darwinism is incompatible with any kind of theism. But not all evolutionists are Darwinists. This is how folks such as Miller and Collins can be evolutionists and theists at the same time.

It is enlightening to see the breadth of comments noted above. Apparently it is not only YEC teachings but also any and all creationist teachings are "destroying" Christianity. And, for that matter, Christianity is apparently "destroying" humanity.

Truth claims never satisfy those who have virulently opposing viewpoints. It is not just facts that convince anyone of the truth of the gospel. It even goes beyond the interpretation of facts. There must also be a change of heart. For the Bible tells us that the devils believe also . . . and tremble.

Those who proceed consistently on a naturalistic framework will inevitably interpret all empirical observations as completely materialistic. Christianity, however, claims that there is much more. This claim ought to be reflected in the work of scientists who wish to consistently proceed on a Christian framework. I fear that many are either inconsistent or keep silent for fear of academic shunning.

Not sure why Moll wants to give the impression that Young Creationists are the only ones who deal with the Genesis text seriously and with integrity. The 45% of the population who are creationists are certainly not all Young Creationists. The affirmation of faith in the Creator takes many more forms than this particular approach. Again, the press seems to wish to brush the whole movement with the tar of the extremists.

Dave, Rosin's article talks about the nearly half of Americans who are young earth creationists, which, she says, are "the 45 percent of Americans who, for 25 years, have consistently agreed with the statement in a Gallup poll that 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'"

That sounds to me like 45 percent of Americans are young earth creationists.

Rosin got some facts wrong, I think, about creationism and the historical use of the Flood to explain aspects of geology. She was dismissive and unkind toward a large percentage of the American people. But I think the article is well-written and a good look at this movement. It is proof that squabbles over young earth creationism, within Christianity and outside it, will only increase over time.

Rob, Thanks for your prompt response.

For me, evolution vs. young-earth creationism is irrelevant -- they are both flawed humans' theories that attempt to explain in more detail how God did the inexplicable, as described so beautifully in Genesis 1. Instead of spending my time arguing so that I offend both my brothers and sisters in Christ, as well as people I hope will come to know Christ, I think it best to stick to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. Love God, love others, make disciples of Christ.

Young Earth Creationism is certainly not the only interpretation of Scripture that takes the Bible at face value, contra the assertions of BC, Ray, and SC above. One example of an alternative that takes the Bible completely at face value is the Framework Theory, which is completely based on Scripture, but argues that the first two chapters of Genesis do not present Creation in a chronological order, but rather in a logical order. In other words, the "days" of creation are a logical framework, not a chronological device. This interpretation is advanced by Lee Irons and Meredith G. Kline in _The_Genesis_Debate_ (edited by David G. Hagopian). That book presents three views on the days of creation, one of which is the 24-hour view, another of which is the Day-Age view held by Hugh Ross. Unfortunately, neither the 24-hour guys nor the Day-Age guys do a good job of responding to each others' arguments, so the framework argument kind of rules the book by default, but the framework interpretation has a lot to commend it, and is utterly Biblical.

Sirs:

I am not sure who Rob Moll is.

I am, however, quite sure who the late Arthur E.Wilder-Smith was: 3 earned doctorates in the sciences, world-reknown lecturer, and a proponent of the young earth viewpoint, based upon Scripture, upon the amount of helium in the air, upon the depth of dust on the moon, upon the circular thinking involved in dating methods, upon the total lack of evidence for the 20+ theories of evolution, etc.

Thank you for reading this.

Sincerely in Christ,

Paul Griffin

So Rob, do you believe that young earth creationism is outside of orthodox Christianity? Because in your final statement, you say that the movement is causing chagrin to "Christians and atheist evolutionists alike." Perhaps you should have qualified that -- "some Christians." I'm a Christian, and it's not causing any chagrin to me.

As it is, it sounds like you're saying that youth earth creationism is contrary to Christianity. Surely you don't believe that.

My previous charge still stands. It's too bad that CT can't provide a balanced treatment to this topic.

I am amazed at the people who keep insisting that the evidence points to evolution. As a former atheist who left atheism because of the obvious flaws in evolution, I'd like to see what "evidence" caused one to leave Christianity.

What is the evidence for life coming from non-life? It violates the Law of Biogenesis, proudly taught as a foundational principle in beginning biology. What evidence is there for transitional life forms? Every missing link candidate proves to fall far short. Darwin predicted that thousands of examples would emerge from the fossil layers. How do you explain thousands of feet of sedimetary material with thousands of fossilized creatures buried within with normal erosive processes?

And Ray Ingles, how do you explain vast resevoirs of fossilized fuels, whether oil, gas or coal, without flood geology? Without some kind of cataclysmic event that caused massive rapid burial, you have no fossil fuels whatsoever. By the way, check your research, millions of years are not needed to produce oil. Thousands of years will suffice nicely.

YEC are not the ones with their heads buried in the sand. Those who have chosen some other compromise are the ones buried in the sands of evolutionary propaganda.

There are only 2 explanations for the sedimentary rock layers we observe. They were either deposited over millions of years or in the Flood recorded in the Bible. If they were deposited over millions of years then Noah's Flood was a local flood, not global, or never happened.

But the New Testament writers refer to the Flood as factual. ‘…in the last days scoffers will come…they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.’2 Peter 3:3-6

Scoffers do not 'deliberately forget' a 'localized' flood. They reject a global one. This argument is about Biblical authority. If you can minimize or mythologize the account of the Flood then why can't you do the same to the account of the ressurection?

Jesus said;‘If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?’ Bottom line? If you believe what Moses wrote you won't have a problem believing Christs words. Moses wrote Genesis, and it contains the account of a Global flood with no evolution...

Thanks Rob. Brave of you to publish this article. I believe in creation. A purposeful beginning for the universe. I believe God created man in his own image. No evolution there, because this is foundational to our salvation. Young earth? Old earth? No problem. Evolution of life forms? No reason. Illogical.

To me "young earth creationism" is a foundation of sand. It requires you to ignore what you see in favor of what you have been taught to believe. One day, you may open your eyes. My favorite nomination for a place for this to happen is along the interstate highway coming up across Arkansas from Texas. There are several miles of road that are cut down into the hills. You see the same very old layers of rock again and again, folded and cracked but obviously the same and obviously laid down flat and then jammed together. That did not happen in only 8K years. You can see this sort of geological arrangement in many places while driving and you usually see it during times when you don't have much else to do except observe and think.

Unfortunately if you teach something that is obviously not right, when the realization of that wrongness occurs, it can shake the whole foundation of your belief structure. Teaching "young earth" is so wrong, so unnecessary, and so stupid in so many ways.

But if you want to see what erosion the flood might have made, visit the "scab lands" of eastern Washington State. Here the land was washed away by “500 foot high flash floods” that resulted from the water from Montana (when glaciers blocked river flow through the mountains in Idaho) breaking through—an estimated 10 times depending on which marks you think are the good ones.

Bennett Willis

Interesting discussion here. Apparently almost everyone here is a Christian, and not an atheist like myself, which should be no surprise on a website called Christianity Today. I'm pleased to see at least some of you accept evolution. I'm not surprised many people here reject evolution, and I'm not surprised their reasons I have heard before. There's a lot of misconceptions about evolution, partly because science education in America is terrible, and partly because there is a big business in America that spreads lies about evolution. Another reason for many people not accepting the massive evidence for evolution might be they think the idea they are closely related to other primates is repugnant. Personally I am very pleased to be related to the other ape species. I especially admire the chimpanzees. I recently read about a memory test done on both chimpanzees and humans. Guess who won? It was the chimps. I watched 3 different videos of a chimp being tested and I was amazed at his ability. It's obvious humans don't have a monopoly on intelligence. I encourage others who are interested in this to google "Chimps beat humans in memory test" and look at the videos.

Another reason many millions of people reject evolution is god. A belief in god gets in the way of understanding how the world really works. As some here pointed out, god does not have to get in the way. Some people choose to accept science and still be Christians. Unfortunately a large number of Christians, perhaps the majority of Christians, do let god get in their way of understanding science. It's unfortunate for them and unfortunate for their religion.

Interesting article.
I am amazed at how easily Americans speak about "what Christians believe", based on an almost purely domestic phenomenon. More than half Christians in the world are Catholics, and the Catholic Church not only never rejected evolutionism, but regards it as a mostly proven scientific theory.
I am also amazed at how non-believers without any knowledge of Christian faith nor Bible scholarship (no background on Biblical literary genres, philology, history of culture, etc) keep telling us believers how to interpret the Bible.
More open minds would mean a more cordial exchange.

Christopher - if you are indeed correct that young-Earth creationism explains the data better, then how do you account for the fact that no one actually uses it for a practical, non-evangelical purpose?

For an example of standard geology being used (successfully) to find oil, see here: http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/feats/2007/location_location.html
As a bonus, it describes how oil reservoirs actually form, which does not involve catastrophic burial events.

I'm not aware of any comparable results from young-Earth geologists. Can you point out some?

Clear evidence for evolution, at least on a micro-scale, exists in the fossil record. Darwinist theory does indeed contain some holes, as Christopher points out. IMO, the reason young earth creationists insist so dogmatically on a young earth is because of the thread of redemption that flows from the Old through the New Testataments. They fear that if there were no literal Adam and Eve, this necessarily vitiates the reason for Jesus's life, death and resurrection. I don't think it does, so long as one accepts a flawed (sinful, if you will) view of human nature.

Bear in mind that the fossil/geological record is not the only or even strongest evidence for evolution. With the burgeoning study of the biological discipline of genetics has come mountains of evidence in favor of modern behaviorally distinct humans having existed for somewhere around 75,000 years. Francis Collins can obviously explain this better than I, but suffice it to say that my amateur interest in genetics was what caused me to abandon YEC in favor of an evolutionary framework.

Interesting comments, Bennett. Perhaps you should take a look at the Toutle River in Washington state. After the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, a canyon formed with 110 foot high walls within 90 days! Some of the things we gaze at and attach millions of years to could well have formed much quicker. The Washington state scablands are a great case in point. Much argument was generated over the scablands, the Grand Coulee, Dry Falls and Palouse Falls. Geologists were locked into a battle over this and finally concluded that it was all formed through catastrophic processes over a relatively short period of time rather than through Uniformitarian processes over millions of years.

Our assumptive foundation determines what we can discover, the lenses we will view life through. Christianity starts with the assumption that there are two co-existing realities--the natural world and the supernatural. And, its adherents believe that those two realms interact--that the supernatural created the natural, entered into it in a pivotal historical moment, and will one day redeem the decaying natural world. Because of this worldview, Christians are able to investigate the truth value of issues related to both realms--the supernatural and the natural.

Materialists, by assuming that there is only one reality, rule out at the starting gate the possibility of investigating any other possibility; and so, they are limited to exploring that which can be empirically investigated. This is all that the human mind, and senses, apart from faith can imagine to be real. This then becomes Ultimate Truth--all that there is.

But what if there is more to reality than my senses can register? And, furthermore, what if the invisible--the spiritual and the supernatural--are actually the most important reality? What are the risks to each position--supernaturalists and naturalistic materialists--if that is the case? I suggest it boils down to this: The supernaturalists may be viewed as fools in this life; the naturalists, in the next.

Both are faith-based views. I know which risk I'd rather take.

And where are these mounds of assumed evolutionary evidences? The interspecial transition forms? Or the evolutionary improvement of human beings, morally, or otherwise? Or where are the convincing disproofs of creationism, or young earth claims in particular.

We have in this discussion a small sample of representatives of the two points of view (including some mixed perspectives). If we compare the attitudinal tone reflected by representatives on each side of the naturalist/supernaturalist debate here, I see emotionally strident, haughty dismissiveness from the hard-core materialistic naturalists, on the one hand, and efforts at reasoned debate by the supernaturalists, on the other. If this is any indication of the impact of our beliefs on our treatment of persons, I know which world I would rather live in.

BobC, is that a basis for Chimp Supremacist Theory? Next thing you know science will be telling us that human bio-diversity exists. We must suppress this.

YECs do not ignore what they see. Observation is the basis of the scientific method. Creationists and evolutionist both observe the exact same facts. There isn't a single observation that they disagree with.

Creationists and evolutionists disagree with each others interpretations of the 'facts', by saying their interpretation offers a superior explanation of what is observed.

Mr. Willis points to the observation that there are rock layers that are folded and cracked. fine, those are the facts. But stating that they are 'old' and 'did not happen in only 8k years' is an interpretation, not 'fact' because no one observed it happen, so there can be no plea to the scientific method.

However, if we are to apply what has been observed to the facts we can try to bolster one theory over another. Ask the question; 'Has anyone observed rock layers form slowly over millions of years?' No, obviously not.

'Has anyone observed rock layers form quickly during flood conditions?' Yes. (Mt. St. Helens eruption 1980+)

So based on observation, which hypothesis is better supported, flood geology or 'millions of years' of uniformitarian slow deposition?

BTW, comments on how 'stupid' your opponents viewpoints are because they disagree with your own is indicative of an emotional commitment, not an intellectual assesment.

Many people think Christians simply believe what they believe because each week they go to a big room where an authority figure stands up at the front and reads from a book and everyone just believes what they say as fact.

Sounds like science class to me...

DiverCity, I share your amateur interest in genetics. It was when I read what Ken Miller said at the Dover trial I realized how powerful DNA evidence is. I'm now reading "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" By Sean B. Carroll. It would be impossible to understand this evidence and still reject evolution.

Pastor GL, You said "I believe God created man in his own image." I wonder how you know what god looks like. Do you think it's possible god was made in man's image? You also said "Evolution of life forms? No reason. Illogical." Why would that be illogical? Virtually every biologist in the world agrees with this quote from a famous scientist: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." Should we listen to what the biologists say about biology, or what a pastor says about biology?

Thanks for the reference, Ray. Interesting article. However, it did not speak to the issue of oil formation, only discussed types of geological contexts that would keep the oil reservoirs from dissipating. The discussion seemed to focus on likely places to find resevoirs, not on the essentiality of millions of years to produce oil. In fact, several times in the article it pointed out that there were times when the supposed age of the rock layers had to be ignored and were irrelevant to finding oil therein. Rather, it was the circumstances of continental drift and similar dynamics that were more key factors in predicting the discovery of "giant" oil reservoir.

I'll have to do a little work regarding your question on YEC research. I have not kept on that and will look into it.

By the way, I should have clarified myself. DiverCity is right when saying that ample evidence exists for evolution within species, also called microevolution. I apologize if my comments seemed to deny such variations within kinds. Generally, when we speak of capital E, Evolution, we are referring to the concept of evolution from one lower life form into a more "complex" or higher life form, that is from amoeba to reptile, from reptile to mammal, from mammal to humans.

That is the type of Evolution that I think is wanting in regards to evidence. And that lack of evidence forced me to abandon it as a science and abandon its cousin, atheism, as a religion.

cary said "Christianity starts with the assumption that there are two co-existing realities--the natural world and the supernatural."

A big problem with supernatural is anything becomes possible. If anything is possible, then we might as well throw out all of science because scientists would be wasting their time. For example, why try to figure out how a species evolved if it's possible it was magically created? It's important to understand supernatural is just another word for magic. Also, god is another word for magician. Theists usually deny supernatural means magic, but if a god can create something out of nothing, I would call him a magician and I would call what he does magic.

Cary - I think there are tonal issues on both sides, what with those who accept evolution being called 'illogical' and so forth. But, as to transitions... here's one you can partially check on your own body:

Lay your fingers on the side of your jaw. Now, trace along the edge up to the very top of the jawbone. Notice how close your fingers are to your ear canal. Inside the inner ear are three bones, the ossicles: malleus, incus, and stapes. They are carefully arranged to transfer sound energy from the eardrum to the cochlea as efficiently as possible. How could such an amazing mechanism arise? (One that's been cited, even, as 'irreducibly complex' - just Google around a bit.)

It turns out that a classification of dinosaur called the therapsids had two jaw joints. The therapsids are known (by several independent lines of evidence) to be ancestral to modern mammals... and we have a basically complete fossil record of the gradual transition of one of those jaw joints into the modern bones of the inner ear. Note that intermediate steps were all advantageous, though not as efficient or optimized. Some transitional forms did help amplify sound energy but didn't work while the animal was chewing. We still have problems with that under some circumstances (try to listen to someone while eating celery) but the separation is far more developed now.

Oh, forgot to add to DiverCity... Interesting that DNA is a turning point for you towards Evolutionism. DNA is a critical turning point for me toward Creationism. Evolutionism has no way to explain ever increasing levels of information as life forms supposedly evolve into more complex animals. The level of information in a single strand of DNA and its precise ordering are arguments against chance, random processes to explain the origins of such life forms. And, please, son't give me the illustrations of 100s of chimps pounding on a typewriter for millions of years could produce Shakespeare. Shakespeare's most complex play pales in comparison to a single strand of DNA.

Scriptural authority doesn't really cut it as an explanation for belief in "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC). That just seems to be an excuse to feel self-righteous and superior, to my jaundiced eye anyway. Moll's comment on "compartmentalized minds" is probably closer to the mark.

There is no reason to think that the YEC activists are stupid and lazy. They seem adequately intelligent, and far from lazy to me. They're just not right in the main thrust of their arguments. They just don't come up with interesting questions, I think, just uninteresting answers to leading questions rather than using predictive questions to explore the edges of the unknown. However, maybe someone will get lucky, and stumble across something interesting, someday. I'm not likely to trust that person's explanation, without reading another's report in a magazine/journal that I do trust, like "Nature."

Judging from Christian television, YEC popularizers, which shouldn't necessarily be confused with the YEC's at the conference, don't have a lot of intellectual integrity going on. That's often a criticism of most popularizers of most everything, I think. And, what should I know of intellectual integrity? ...Well, I do work in the Stygian mines of academia, but not as an academic. So, dismiss that criticism if you wish.

I've often wondered why people believe in YEC. It's doesn't really tie all that closely with the opening of Genesis, in my observation anyway. I mean, plants probably didn't exist before the sun and the moon were created to rule the skies. It was good sense, however, that they had started to grow before people needed them.

It's uncontroversial that there are seven days in the opening of Genesis because the area's polytheists believed in Seven Planetary Gods. The days of the week, Nordicized in English, still bear the ancient gods' names. Today is Woden's day. I see no reason to believe that God had some superstition about the number seven, or any other number in the Bible.

Genesis assures the reader that pagan gods, of what any number, have no powers, no domain sthat they rule, no reason to try to appease them, as they don't exist. What are today's equivalents? What are we falsely worshiping today? What falsely is ruling our lives, that we can simply reject, and it goes away?

Naming those false gods in Genesis would have perpetuated their names as rivals to the One God. Merely numbering them is to dismiss them. That's great writing, if nothing else.

I wonder if YEC, seeming to be most popular in the US, South Africa and Australia, all English speaking countries that have had extremely racist governments, has something to more do with racism? In some sublimated way, for most people today, of course. YEC is the science of God's supernatural, born again race, as I think Kenneth Copeland once put it. YEC is the science of God's royal race, God's regents...as in Regent University. Literal interpretation of the Bible was the main weapon of choice by pro-slavery and Jim Crow apologists, after all, and it seems to be the main weapon of choice for YEC popularizers.

However, there is an Islamic variant of YEC as well, which might suggest something else...or something else in addition to my hypothesis.

In any case, there isn't a lot of physical evidence of a universal flood in the Iron Age, which is where Genesis places Noah's flood. Tubal Cain was pounding away on iron before the flood. Genesis 4:24.

Personal experience should always be discounted, of course, but it can illustrate. My father was a surveyor; he would have found evidence of that sort of recent thing most everywhere, I think. He saw plenty evidence of flooding, people farm flood plains after all, but not evidence of a one time, universal flood, everywhere he surveyed. By the way, keep up on your flood insurance, Global warming is probably going to make for extremes in weather.

You might be interested in Asa Gray, devout Presbyterian and "America's Darwin," who even way back when, had formulated an evolutionary teleology. I wasn't convinced by him, but it's fun. As far as racism goes, however, he was a "white" man of his times, and that was a disgraceful age on matters of "race," even by today's too low standards.

If memory serves, one old rabbinic interpretation of Noah's Flood read that the waters from below and above thing as a metaphor for literacy and writing coming from above, merging with the oral tradition coming from below (or vice versa), flooding the world with an unprecedented new age, sweeping out old the evils and the old traditions, and creating new opportunities...for new evils and traditions. The world's first age of information overload?

On the other hand, experiencing some sort of non-metaphoric flooding is a near universal experience. People had to live near water, like rivers and lakes, that all flood sometimes. Most any historical society has pictures of a flood(s), I bet. Even an oasis can be flooded by sand and destroyed. If one survives the flood, one is both comforted by the Noachian story of survival and new beginnings, and be warned that a new beginning isn't necessarily going to be without it's own new stresses and evils.

I really enjoyed reading "The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis" by Leon R. Kass. However, Evangelicals were warned against it by CT, if memory serves.

Science, I don't think, deals in truths. I see science dealing in predictive power in exploring the edges of the unknown. Fruitful science is a question manufacturing machine. It's not really that a theory is proved wrong, but that the theory doesn't keep coming up with reliably predictive questions. The theory then floats off into history, though some aspect of it can always be looked at again, with fresh eyes, and maybe start a new thread of questions...like the theory of continental drift's history. Plate tectonics is now a question manufacturing machine like few others.

I always look forward to reading posts on the creation/evolution debate. However, I must admit that I am disappointed at some of the responses to Rob Moll's article.

Some of the posters seem to be interested more in self-promotion than in knowledge. What is the point in name calling and verbal abuse when learning is what we are supposed to be about. Some of the persons posting succeeded only in being grossly unmannerly.

Is it heat or light that we are after? If it is "science" we want to advance then why not stop referring to others as stupid, ignorant, foolish, stubborn, "not human" etc., and advance some real arguments.

One poster says that there is "a massive amount of evidence to support evolution". However, he did not put forward even a single piece of that "massive" evidence. I don't get it! Maybe he thinks everyone already knows and accepts this "massive" evidence. Or maybe he is saying if you are so uneducated, or ignorant about this evidence, shame on you!

It seems to me that there are many "debaters" whose only desire is to villify and embarrass their opponent, and this is supposed to how how smatrt and superior they are.

There are many like me who want to be enlightened. That is one of the reasons I read CT. After reading these posting though I can"t honestly say I have learned much about the position of either creation or evolution apart from what I came in with.

Some may say this is neither the time nor place to deal with the issues. I beg to respectfully disagree. How much time would it take to name one or two pieces of the "massive amount of evidence" in favour of evolution" and explain these in simply terms? Why take up space ridiculing an idea when you can use that same space to be positive and constructive?

How are we going to move persons from one position to another if we keep beating them with the big stick of our overly inflated egos?

I wouldn't think that there would be any materialists left after Einstein. E=mc squared means something. Stop fighting Victorian straw men, and join the 21st century.

What is material, anyway? If you get really close and really tiny to the edges of material things, you fall into empty space, as empty as space gets, I guess. You can't tell where the edge of something, the surface of something, actually begins and ends.

The Victorian materialist dialectic simply disappears. Marx is dead (though you should read him anyway. The Communist Manifesto is funny, and as the man who put the "ism" in capitalism, you shouldn't discount him unless you actually like wild business cycles.)

It's only when you stand back, and get a big enough perspective, only then can you approximate where the edge, the surface, of a material thing exists. You can't, however, locate that with perfect precision. Edges and surfaces become metaphysical, social constructs, rather than material reality. Yet, edges and surfaces of materials are quite useful in everyday life, don't you think?

Christopher said: "Interesting that DNA is a turning point for you towards Evolutionism. DNA is a critical turning point for me toward Creationism. Evolutionism has no way to explain ever increasing levels of information as life forms supposedly evolve into more complex animals."

Thou dost assume too much.: ) I'm not materialist - reductionist - Darwinist, in the sense that I don't foreclose the possibility of an intelligent agent (writ, God) causing/guiding the process of evolution. You and I likely agree on many things. As Antony Flew recently stated in "There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," :

"Moving on now from the parable, it's time for me to lay my cards on the table, to set out my own views and the reasons that support them. I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.

Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature."

It seems to me that if one is a born-again believer, the issue of creation is self evident if one defines the act of creation as God's manufacture of of all that exists whatever process He may have used. The evolutionists represented in the article are as lazy as the creationists they criticize. There are scores of interpretations of the Genesis passages by believers who belive that the Scriptures are accurate and authortative, whether they believe in 6 literal 24 hour periods, the day/age theories, some other variations thereof,or theistic evolution. The tone of the article is indeed shocking and troubling and not at all an honest treatment of an extremely complex subject. Do more homework!!

Ray Ingles, thanks for that lesson about the evolution of the bones in the inner ear.

Steve Skeete said "However, he did not put forward even a single piece of that 'massive' evidence."

That would be me. If I did spend all day writing about that massive evidence, what good would it do? Would you read it, understand it, and agree with it? Probably if you bothered to read it, you would come up with some way to lie about it, or repeat the lies you have been told about it. That's my experience when talking to creationists, so now I tell them if they want to see the evidence for evolution, they should look it up themselves instead of wasting my time, being careful to avoid the "Liars for Jesus". Do they bother to look it up, and if they do look it up, do they try to ignore the "Liars for Jesus"? No, they either don't bother with it, or they get their information from professional liars (Discovery Institute, Answers In Genesis, etc.).

For the people here who say things like "Evolutionism has no way to explain..." or other anti-science nonsense, here's a quote from a very famous 19th Century scientist whose picture appears on the British 10 pound note.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." [Charles Darwin]

One of the remarkable things about Genesis is that it describes an intelligent being manipulating energy and matter to form something. The creation myths of non-Israelite cultures play out like a soap opera of ambitious and warring gods. What Genesis affirms is that all of the elements of the world we see, including plants, animals and humans, are placed here by God. The mechanism is not described, other than God directing things to happen, and confirmation that they did occur as God directed. There is no exposition of God's methods and the kinds of plants and animals listed are not a complete taxonomy but simply representative examples. The notion that "day" can only represent a 24-hour period conflicts with the alternate notion that it might represent a thousand year period (based on a passage in Peter's epistles that was not explaining Genesis). "Day" in ordinary English usage can also represent an indefinite era made up of many 24-hour days. We use it to mean both 24 hours and the shorter period that is not night.

The assumption that Genesis is describing the creation of the entire universe, rather than of the earth and its immediate environs, is in conflict with what the author, presumably Moses, and most of his readers knew of as the "universe" for most of history. It is one thing to claim that God created the Big Bang; it is another to assert that the story told in Genesis was meant to refer to areas not within the comprehension of mankind until the 19th Century.

Most of Genesis 1 is clearly referring to the earth, its seas and mountains, its plants, fish, insects, animals, and people. The entire creation of other stars and galaxies is claimed to be contained in the words "Let there be light". But this does not even describe the varieties of objects in the distant heavens invisible to the naked eye. When we claim that Genesis is a complete description of all creation, we are reading a lot of assumptions into the few words.

Once we accept Genesis as the story of the earth only, the events are actually a decent table of contents for the detailed history of our planet that has been filled in by astronomy, geology, and paleontology. The correlation is remarkable, the kind of summary one might compose who had seen a time-compressed movie of the process described by scientists. Understood in this fashion, Moses is showing a remarkable prescience about what science will discover thousands of years later.

Rather than trying to defy cosmology, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and biology, to support an idiosyncratic interpretation of Genesis, we should be pointing to the intelligence of the text and challenging materialists to explain how a so-called ignorant primitve tribesman knew so much science. The scientific verification of Moses' outline of the earth's creation should cause us to take seriously the thesis of the text: that these things were all accomplished under the direction of God, even though we are definitely NOT told the mechanisms he used.

What is the scientific evidence for an intelligence being involved in creation? On this earth, the origin of LIFE has NO coherent scientific theory. All the National Academy of Sciences can come up with is a reference to various competing (and incompatible) hypotheses, none of which has been confirmed to work by any experiment. Darwin thought that living cells were no more complex than lime jello with mandarin oranges thrown in. Only in the last 50 years have we understood that the cell is a complex nanomachine, the creation of which we can only aspire to. Each cell has not only a complex mechanism of protein machinery, it also has a complete bluprint (in duplicate) for all that machinery, as well as the ability to duplicate both machinery and blueprints via cell division and sexual reproduction. The "GAP" between inanimate matter and a living cell is too full of non-life for there to be some gradual staircase moving from dirt to living entity. We know all too well that the removal or disabling of a single one of the mechanisms or blueprints can halt life or reproduction, so how did a cell ever exist that was less than a cell is now?

Knowing what we know now about computers, the fact that even the simplest DNA has the potential to have more variations than there are atoms in the known universe, tells us that no random process could create a DNA string that can describe and create and reproduce a living cell within the known (14 billion year) age of the universe. What machine was making all sorts of random DNA strings? To hypothesize such an unknown mechanism, never observed in nature, you might as well take the next logical step and hypothesize a biologist to create and power and feed and maintain the machine. If you are a materialist, you might as well call this biologist God, since you are not using that term for anything else. And how did the DNA accomplish anything without a cell membrance, separating the cell from its randomizing and diluting environment, and enclosing the raw materials and protein mechanisms necessary to read the DNA memory banks.

Materialists place boundless confidence in the creative power of randomness. But out in the real world of medicine, we know that randomizing a person's DNA is the source of cancer and all sorts of debilitating diseases. Since every existing mechanism presumably contributes to survival, the loss of any one is liable to de-survivalize (kill) the host. So the trick is to find a random change that is a rare one that does NOT destroy a needed capacity, and then within that very small set find one that actually improves survival chances. Contrary to "Godzilla", "Them", "The Incredible Hulk" and other SciFi movies, radiation and randomization tends to kill, not improve. The small genetic variations that are pointed to as examples of productive random mutation are the disabling of a capability that also was a disability (such as sickle cell anemia). The hypothesis of Michael Behe's newest book is that the creative ability of random mutation is extremely limited, so that evolutionary development appears to operate at the level of very small changes. There is no evidence that the evolutionary pressures that created sickle cell anemia have had any luck creating positive, complex mechanisms without dire side effects.

DNA analysis provides so much information that scientists are able to describe in great detail how each species evolved and which species are most closely related to each other. For example (and if I don't get all my facts right, I welcome corrections), about 6 million years ago the ancestors of modern humans and the ancestors of modern chimpanzees were the same species. These animals split up and began evolving differently. For the first few hundred thousand years, when they would encounter each other they were still almost the same and they were able to and did mate with each other. Eventually they completely separated, an event which occurred about 5 million years ago. Scientists know all this stuff because they can see strong evidence for it when they compare our DNA to the chimps' DNA. They have evidence we split apart a few million years ago, and they also have evidence it was a sloppy split which took a very long time. The people who deny all this powerful evidence don't understand it.

Tim, You're right, saying YEC is causing chagrin to "some" Christians would have been more accurate.

Thanks for that acknowledgment, Rob.

Evolutionism has no way to explain ever increasing levels of information as life forms supposedly evolve into more complex animals."...

I can think of two ways...

One is called The Theory of Natural Selection. It's quite good, and it's been around since 1859, much, much refined, of course, and still generating seemingly endless research, as good theory does.

Go visit any good science research library, and see if I'm lying. You'll be literally buried deep under material, if you're rash enough to try and drag it all to one spot...and more will be piled up on you, everyday.

Most any science index will back me up here. The theory of natural selection is still cutting edge, after all this time. Extraordinary.

That's why Darwin is deservedly famous, though of course, it was independently observed by Alfred Russel Wallace, who should get more recognition for his stupendous achievement, I think.

Don't forget the second law of thermodynamics, which isn't only about increasing entropy, but also about open systems with a constant source of energy coming in...like Earth. Sure, increasing entropy will catch up with the Sun, someday, but in the meantime, enjoy the ride.

Increasing entropy isn't an instant process, it takes time, and Earth has had plenty of time for it's state of both simultaneously decreasing and increasing entropy to work up some really interestingly complex patterns. At sometime in the distant future, this state will go cold and possibly shred apart even after that, so any quantum particle is just too far apart from any other particle to accidentally interact in any meaningful way, but it's great fun while it lasts.

As a former evolutionary ethologists and carnivore zookeeper at the Audubon Zoological Gardens in New Orleans, Rob Moll's anti-young earth creationism blog and the many one-sided responses reminded me of when I once bashed the young earth creation interpretation of geological evidences. Like my own past methods of "argumentation", the above blog article selectively censors crucial details about young earth scientists, their numbers, their qualifications, their research (RATE Project), and the scientific evidences that have caused hundreds of respected PhD men and women to reject hypotheses regarding millions/billions of years (along with the unreliable dating methods that are claimed to "support" them). If the evidence against a young earth model is so strong, then why is it so common to see similar articles like this one that refuse to address the young earth model's details with scientific specifics. Avoiding a real debate by merely proclaiming young earth creationism to be unworthy of debate is one of the poorest and weakest forms of argumentum ad hominem. Actually, I had thought such a tactic was unworthy of Christianity Today. At least it once was, years ago, but the world and the modern church have apparently changed dramatically.

Materialists proclaim that, since science has explained all that we know, the people who believe in a being outside nature to explain anything are reduced to using that mechanism only in the "gaps" of human knowledge. The second assertion of the materialists is that the "gaps" are inexorably closing, so that eventually there will be no room for a "God explanation" within the universe of materialist explanations.

The materialists who make this argument (without any actual thought) are offering mankind a very poor model of science. They assert that there is a finite body of knowledge, and that we, puny mankind, are ever so close to comprehending ALL of that finite amount.

(One of the odd things about this is that their attitude completely contradicts their other favorite assertion that science has progressively dethroned mankind from the central and most important place in the universe, beginning with Copernicus, and that the "principle of mediocrity" requires us to assume that mankind and its place in the solar system, galaxy and universe are nothing special. Yet the same materialists proclaim that, unlike everything else in the universe, mankind is able to comprehend everything else and understand the mechanisms of how it came into existence and evolved over time. That makes humans--at least human materialists--pretty damn special and non-mediocre!)

The actual experience of science has been that, as mankind has understood the mechanisms and character of the natural world, it has opened up the ability to ask new questions, the answer to which raise geometrically more questions, ad infinitum. Look at the scientific business. Ask the scientists if they are afraid they are going to lose their jobs soon because they will have answered all the questions about nature. They will laugh and assure you (along with their grant committee) that there are deep and complex mysteries still waiting to be plumbed, with enough time and PhD candidates and grant money. And every one of the millions of scientists say the same thing!

Thus, even as we know more and more about nature, we find more and more questions, a term meaning "things we DON'T know." Science in its reality as a part of the modern economy is built on the premise that there is an infinite progression of new questions behind every answer. The fact we are compiling more answers has no relationship to the number of questions. Scientific knowledge is not a zero sum game. It is a progressive tree of knowledge, ever expanding, with no end in sight.

An analogy can be made to fractal geometry. When we focus on the boundary between knowledge and the unknown, we find it to have a fractal geometry, and as we focus closer in, we find more and more complexity. The real world tends to be fractal in nature.

Let's consider some of the big questions. As scientists in the early part of the 20th Century examined the movement of galaxies, they found that they were rapidly expanding as space expanded, leading to the conclusion that the galaxy had originated a finite time in the past in the Big Bang. This, instead of ending inquiry, has raised more and more questions.

In recent decades, we have realized that the sum of all ordinary matter in a galaxy is far short of what is needed to make it coalesce, and spin as a single object rather than a bunch of orbiting stars with speeds of revolution slowing greatly as they distance themselves from the center. Scientists have concluded that 80% of matter is "dark matter" which we cannot detect by electromagnetic radiation, which has graviational mass that created and coheres the galaxies.

Ten years ago, we discovered that the expansion was speeding up! We are only hypothesizing about the cause, but the theories offered are that there is a Dark Energy, that is several times the size of all matter (dark and light) in the universe. We don't know what it is or why. But we know it is there.

So in cosmology, all our learning has led us to the conclusion that we do NOT know what 90% of the universe is made of! That is one damn big GAP. We didn't know this gap was there 20 years ago! The claim that we knew what the universe was made of was a hollow boast, based on pride in our (mediocre) intelligence.

Our own ignorance has the peculiar feature of being invisible to us. By definition, we cannot measure the volume of what we do not know. So the assertion that the volume of things we do not know is diminishing, and will some day approach zero, is the most ignorant statement of all.

The one thing we can inductively conclude, based on experience, is that the more we know, the more we will realize and appreciate our ignorance. The statement from Darwin about the confidence that ignorance has is true. However, scientists need to admit that they are ignorant as well. If they deny their ignorance, then they are more ignorant than the rest of mankind, who admit there are things we don't know.

One of the remarkable things about Genesis is that it describes an intelligent being manipulating energy and matter to form something."

I don't read manipulation, I read proclamation. I manipulate energy and matter, God proclaims and it is as it is. The universe is empowered, not manipulated by quirky, egotistical gods that need to be appeased, and suspiciously look like me, but by the One God. The God that is unknowable, unlike gods that look suspiciously like me.

Raymond Takashi Swenson, You are correct, there are things we don't know. There is more than enough gaps in our knowledge to keep scientists happily employed forever. That's a good thing. How boring it would be if we ever knew everything. However this is no reason to invoke god to explain anything. If scientists ever said let's just give up and invoke god to explain what we don't know yet, what would that accomplish? It would accomplish nothing. Invoking god because of our ignorance would make human progress come to a complete stop. This is why Intelligent Design is called the philosophy of ignorance, and science is called the philosophy of discovery.

At the risk of being frowned out of the discussion by such an erudite, scholarly group (and, lest we take ourselves too seriously) I share this story: A group of brilliant scientists approached God one day with the bold challenge, "We have found the secret of life and we wish to challenge you to a contest to see who is able to create a human being the fastest." Never one to flee a challenge, God replied, "OK, you're on." And so, at the appointed time for the contest to begin, God reached down and scooped up a handful of dirt; as did the scientist. But God interrupted saying, "No, no. You create your own dirt!" . . .

And then, too, there's the age-old question, "I wonder if ants believe in humans?"

Wow..I had not realized this discussion would inspire this many posts! However, might I convey congrats to you all for doing just that, responding to that which you obviously disagree, or support. I am a believer in a young earth, Jesus as my savior, the Bible as ultimate truth, and atheists as fools. How anybody could reject a Creator God is beyond comprehension. However....Let's just settle with this -> There is by no means an evolutionary creationist, as Steve wrote. These 2 ideologies are mutually exclusive. One is true (Obviously creation science) and the other (evolution ) is a terrible lie, based on evidence. Can't be both Steve-O. Truth is an absolute concept. It's either fully true, or it is not true at all.

Oh.......and Bob C, please try to shed your atheistic dogma. When you face God on judgement Day, you won't like the fact you rejected Him.

JJ Reynolds

To Rob:

Thanks for the good article and courage to say what you really believe. If you were too harsh (which I don't think), it's clear that young earth creationists are both aware of the challenges they face and willing/able to stand up for themselves (though not factually in my observation).

To Everyone:

Responses have covered many of the directly-related issues and offered references for further reading. I will add one that comes from a bit different angle, and introduces yet another, little-considered realm of data that we overlook to our peril. If evolution is threatening, this area is panic-inducing to many. The book MAY become a critical turning point, and at the least, the subject of it certainly WILL become significant very soon. I refer to "Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA" by Hoagland and Bara. (Related also is "The Momuments of Mars" by Hoagland).

One of the sad developments in Christian higher education, IMHO, is that there are a shrinking number of schools teaching creationism, and an even smaller group teaching young earth creationism; theistic evolution is becoming the popular position. I see this as (1) a sad commentary on the quality of christian scholarship in the scientific arena, and (2) a reflection of the Church buying into the wisdom of this world. To borrow the title of J.B. Phillips' little book of decades ago and apply it to today's Church in America: Our God is too small.

Raymond Takashi Swenson: You said this but I got the impression you don't agree with it: "...science has progressively dethroned mankind from the central and most important place in the universe, beginning with Copernicus, and that the 'principle of mediocrity' requires us to assume that mankind and its place in the solar system, galaxy and universe are nothing special."

I sure agree with it. We are just one species of animal on one insignificant planet in a vast universe. We most certainly are nothing special.

I highly recommend this 3 minute YouTube video: "Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Cary, I agree it's a sad development that theistic evolution is becoming the popular position in Christian higher education. The word evolution does not need any adjectives, especially not the adjective theistic. Nobody ever talks about theistic gravity. There's no reason to attach this useless adjective to evolution. Theology has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. I think even Ken Miller and Francis Collins would agree with me. Neither of these Christians invoke god to explain evolution. I wish people would stop calling evolution theistic. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology and it's insulting to biologists to call it theistic.

JJ Reynolds...do as I say or God will smite you? Why is this not a tawdry protection racket?

Kenneth Miller is a Bible-mocker whose profession of faith should not be trusted. And he is demonstrably unreliable in science, as shown in my co-authored review of his book http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826/. This includes his ideas about the alleged evolution of the bacterial flagellum that contradict even evolutionary experts in the field http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5213/#flagellum It should worry Christians that the leading misotheist Clinton R. Dawkins recommends Miller's book to Christians.

But I've already explained about Miller's sheep-clothed lupine nature to CT in a response to a glowing article about him, but of course the letter was not published. See http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3239/

Why does a belief in 'Theistic Design' necessarily have to be linked with 'Young Earth' assertions anyway? I'm not stupid I far as I know, but as a doctor I see enough evidence of theistic design to be convinced of its validity. I'm also humble enough to know that there exists a great many things in this universe that can't be explained or conceived by our pathetic finite minds. And yet, I don't need to believe in a young earth and literal creation timelines. To me, the universe can be old and created. No problem for me. Those who hold to 'theistic evolution' (including alister McGrath and co)are kidding themselves and trying to save face with their evolutionist mates. Evolution is, by definition, driven by chance and natural selection. This immediately disqualifies God as being part of it. Secular evolutionists who believe evolution is 'fact' are also kidding themselves and are the worst culprits for swallowing something by 'blind faith' that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

Roger - Australia, I have always wanted to visit Australia. Maybe some day. You said evolution "has more holes in it than Swiss cheese." That would be a big surprise to several dozen scientific organizations, including the Australian Academy of Science.

Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp

Since as Roger says, "evolution is, by definition, driven by chance and natural selection," the Christian, also by definition, cannot reconcile the essentials of his faith to it regardless of the length of time that might be ascribed to creation. A more fundamental consideration is the crucial notion of the Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

According to Darwinian evolutionists, our understanding of father and son are derived from the random emergence of surviving life forms that have a "father" and "son" relationship to one another.There is no other way these biological modes could have arisen by their theory.

Yet as Christians we believe that the Father and Son have existed eternally, outside of our understanding of space and time much less outside the constructs of evolution. In other words, we believe that the Father and Son preceded any possible randomly construed evolutionary development of that kind of relationship among life forms.

A Christian can't have it both ways. It would be absurd to suggest that God's son only came into being after evolution delivered such a life form and that God then accomodated Himself to this process (in which He was never engaged) by sending down Christ as an embodiment of that randomly created life form.

Seeing things this way makes the most fundamental premise of our faith, a heavenly Father and his begotten Son, incompatible with a theory of evolution driven by chance and natural selection.

According to our faith, the notion of father and son preceded evolution and not the other way around. Louis

My faith is not based on what a bunch of creationists or evolutionists tell me but upon both natural and special revelation.
The Bible is God's infallible and inerrant revelation. But it isn't a science textbook either and I would like to see much more insightful comparison of facts to allow me to critically evaluate the evidence rather than ideological wars and finger pointing. I've seen plenty of that kind of thing from both the young earth creationists and the evolutionists.
From my point of view:
-The consensus of Scientists in and of itself means nothing to me. The consensus has been wrong before.
-Acceptance of the Bible as both inerrant and infallible does not require me to also accept young earth creationism.(YEC) Those who use YEC as a sort of litmus test for whether someone is a true believer do a great disservice to Christianity.

JDM has it right. The Bible, as an infallible and inerrant source of divine revelation, is a book about theology and theological anthropology. The mistake is treating it as a literal 21st Century science text - a role for which it was never intended. I agree with JDM - consensus of atheistic scientists doesn't convince me any more than a consensus of theologians would convince someone like BobC. This whole debate has no use in apologetics as all three sides of the argument (atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists and theistic design advocates) will never be convinced by the others, no matter how well put togather the arguments are. This comes down to worldviews and that is hard to change. Those without the Spirit are never able to discern spiritual things and the things of the Spirit to them are foolishness. BobC will no doubt agree.

I provided some links to websites that explain evolution and the evidence for it. Perhaps because of the large number of links I provided, it was held up to be reviewed. Hopefully it will all appear here later. I think people should study evidence on their own. What I provided, if it ever shows up here, is where to look for it. Nobody should be trusted, not even scientists. People should look at evidence for evolution and decide for themselves if the evidence is powerful enough to call evolution a fact. It's best to study it carefully before making any decision for or against it.

I'm very disturbed with Christianity Today's blatant ridicule of young earth creationists. Who is running this website anyways? This article is ridiculous. Hey, Christianity Today! Have you read your Bible lately and not that watered down version either... your 1611 King James Bible! The Bible clearly teaches a young earth! Only a retarded god would use evolution which relies completely on death, suffering and misfits to be succesfull. Seriously. Is this a liberal Christian website? Are they doing more harm to Christians than good?

Either the universe was designed, or it came about by random chance. These are the only options. Let's take a look at what evolutionists believe. Lot's of them (is Christianity Today in this camp?) are telling people that if you move up your family tree far enough great great great great great grandpa was a monkey swinging from a tree, but ask them where is the proof? Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Evolution teaches that in the beginning there was nothing then it exploded. Think about this for a minute. Everyone knows that that matter could not come from nothing exploding. Yet, they put this in your science book. This is what they believe. It is ridiculous! They do not have another choice except, "God created the heaven and the earth."

They have are little stories about how a bear fell into the ocean and became a whale. But we don't have the actual bear and the whale. They use their imagination to imagine evolution took place, like you know, Elton John looks like Janet Reno. Therefore Elton John gave birth to Janet Reno. All they can do is find an odd-looking duck that looks like another duck. They can't prove the descendant relationship. What you ought to have under the theory of random mutation and natural selection is a whole lot of transitional species or animals, far more than you have of the final product. In fact, there really never is a final product because we're always moving on to something better. You know, humans ought to be sprouting new wings and tails as we speak.

Oh, by the way, how many are aware Charles Darwin was a racist? They call his book, The Origin of Species. That's not correct. When someone says that, raise your hand immediately and say, "Excuse me, what is the rest of the title, please? I would like to hear the whole title of the book." Back in those days, they had long titles on their books. Here is the whole title of the book, "The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life." Favored races? Ok, Charlie...we get the picture. So did Hitler. We could spend all day on that one, but I am too tired.

After weighing all the evidence and reviewing the creation/evolution subject thousands of times, I believe and can say with all certainty that the Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of the living God. The universe was created in six literal, 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago as revealed in the creation verses of the Bible (see Mathew 19:4; Exodus 20:11; Genesis 1 & 5 etc……)

I believe that if any rational person hears the truth about the controversy between the creation and evolution, the conclusion will be overwhelmingly obvious that God created the world, just like the Bible says. To me this is one of the most fantastic ministries possible because so many people have their faith renewed by understanding the science and applying it to the evidence.

The earth is not billions of years old. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing. Evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. And I'm running out of space. I'll just stop writing now.

apacallyps, you got a lot of misconceptions about science and about the science of evolution. I was going to completely ignore your comments until I noticed you called Darwin a racist. In his book, "The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life" he was not talking about the different races of humans. He was talking about different animal species. Darwin was most definitely NOT a racist. For example, when he lived there were slaves in America and Darwin was very much against slavery. It's unfortunate there have been lies spread about Darwin here in America. In England they thought so highly of Darwin he was buried at Westminster Abbey close to Sir Isaac Newton, and today his picture is on the British 10 pound note.

apacallyps, here is the definition of RACE as used in biology and as used in Darwin's book: "An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies."

As you can see, Darwin was not talking about the different human races in his book. I just want you to understand any information you were given about Darwin being a racist is not correct.

apacallyps, sorry to bother you again, but I just wanted to say you are pretty much wrong about everything. For example, your estimated age for the universe is quite a bit off. It's not 6,000 years old. All the scientific evidence shows the universe to be more than 13,000,000,000 years old. Somebody did the math and figured out your 6,000 year estimate for the age of the universe would be equivalent to saying New York City is 24 feet from San Francisco. That's how terribly wrong you are. I suppose you think the Bible is more accurate than all of our 21st century scientific knowledge, but it's terrible to think that way.

Here's a quote you should consider:

"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."
-- Thomas Aquinas

I don't think we should forget the views of Jesus and the New Testament writers. According to Mark 10:6 God created man "at the beginning of creation" and not millions of years after the beginning. I believe that "beginning" here means - beginning. There are plenty of scientific facts that support the young earth position, such as the discovery of blood cells in a T-rex bone, the rapid formation on canyons, the discovery of carbon 14 in diamonds and the very existence of short-term comets.
I don't think Christians should a priori reject a position that after all is biblical and supported by solid evidence.
http://joelkontinen.blogspot.com/

BobC wrote: "If I did spend all day writing about that "massive evidence" (in support of evolution), what good would it do? Would you read it, understand it, and agree with it? Probably if you bothered to read it, you would come up with some way to lie about it, or repeat the lies you have been told about it. That's my experience when talking to creationists, so now I tell them if they want to see the evidence for evolution, they should look it up themselves instead of wasting my time..."

With all due respect it does not make a lot of sense in my opinion joining the debate on creation/evolution if that is going to be your position from the outset.

There is this perception that people are not changed by arguments or differing opinions. That view is totally incorrect since several persons have publicly acknowledged changing their minds and their views when faced with irrefutable information.Former Atheist Anthony Flew is just one most recent example.

I like something that Flew once said: "one should follow the evidence whereever it leads".

I read recently of one scientist, an atheist, who said that his debates with a Christian scientist who also happens to be his friend, had had a profound effect on his thinking in relation to the existence of God. And although his views has not changed, he was impressed with the evidence his friend had put forward. The Christian said too that he had found his atheist friend's reasoning to be quite compelling.

None of this amazed me, since I believe that people on both sides of the isssue can be and should be friends, and should discuss and listen to each other with out animosity. In fact, I believe this would do more for the debate than the rancour that seeks to pass itself off as reason.

This idea held by some that people are somehow irreversibly stuck in their opinions and cannot change is as false as people believing that they have the only "truth" and everybody else is an idiot. Facts are more stubborn that people, and when confronted by them honest men will often give heed.

So I would again respectfully request that BobC put aside the seeming arrogance and humbly share a little of that "massive amount of evidence in support of evolution" in his next posting.

You never know, Bob, what your disclosure will mean to some unenlightened soul.

If the theatre of creation is not a field of science, who knows of any other?
A careful reading and analysis of the account of creation (Genesis 1) is not at all hostile to the science of evolution. The two seem to complement each other. Look at the record. PRE-CREATION (verses 1-3) is simply characterized by a total chaos of formless and desolate earth,undelineated ocean and total darkness. Order steps in with creation by stages in the following order:
1. Light and darkness (named "day" and "night" verses 3-4);
2. Dome (named "sky" verses 6-8);
3. Water below the sky coming together in one place (named "sea"),
appearance of the land (named "earth")and
growth of grain and fruit-bearing plants
(verses 9-13);
4. Appearance of lights in the sky, i.e., the suns, the moon, the
stars
+ to separate day from night and
+ to show the time of day, years and seasons
(verses 14-19)
5. Appearance of water and air-borne life (verses 20-25); and
6. Making of 2 types of human beings in stages:
+ out of the soil of the ground (like all the other animals
before them) and
+ in God's own image (Spirit), i.e., reclassification or being
born again of the Spirit
(verses 26-31)
The stages of scientific evolution seem to be in line with the
account of creation! So, where is the problem?

Mr. Swenson - it's quite true that aboiogenesis is a very young field and no good, testable theory has come out of it. At the current point, it's certainly not possible to disprove the notion that the first life was placed on Earth by a God or aliens or whatever.

However, I'd suggest being wary of laying too much store by that. Many things have been confidently asserted to be impossible for science to explain that have later turned out be perfectly comprehensible. Any 'mechanical' theory of cellular reproduction was once categorically dismissed by the famous physician J.S. Haldane in the early part of the 20th century; indeed he insisted it had to be fundamentally spiritual in nature. But a scant few decades later, the structure of DNA was elucidated.

Of course, even if abiogenesis is shown to be impossible, that would not affect the solid evidence we have for evolution after the first life appeared. One of the most impressive is the fact that life fits into a nested hierarchy. Why are there no lizards with hair and nipples? Why no fish with feathers?

When we find such a pattern among books, we have no trouble deciding that this shows a history of descent with modification. "This typo was introduced at such-and-such a point, and appears in so-and-so family of copies, some of which have other typos introduced later, etc." This is not at all controversial when used to follow the branching history of copies of the Gospel, for example.

And then, a century after Darwin, a separate tree was discovered, that of DNA. It, too, showed a nested hierarchy of inheritance with modification... and it was, almost without exception, the same tree that had been deduced from physical traits.

Note that it didn't have to be that way. A fundamental molecule of biology, cytochrome C, has a few different forms. Mice have one form, wheat has another... and the pattern of inheritance of these forms matches up with the 'tree of life' as biologists have determined it. But it didn't have to be that way. Wheat engineered to use the mouse form of cytochrome C grows just fine. If we had found that in nature - no tree at all, or a tree of neutral mutations that directly contradicted the 'phylogenetic' tree - it would have been powerful evidence against evolution. (Imagine if a tree based on bookbinding technology (this glue was used here, this type of cover was used there) contradicted a tree deduced from typos in the text...)

But, instead, the 'tree' from DNA (utterly unimagined in Darwin's time) backs up the 'cladistic' tree developed from the hierarchy of traits in the natural world. Creationism cannot account for that, except to say that either it was a staggering coincidence or that the 'intelligent designer' wanted it to look like evolution for some unknown reason.

Mr. Swenson - it's true that science will almost certainly never know everything, and indeed it's effectively certain that many things currently widely believed by scientists will turn out to be false. But science ultimately isn't about truth - it's about testing ideas and rejecting the ones that turn out to be false.

If I may quote Isaac Asimov on this one, in his essay "The Relativity of Wrong" (well worth reading): "[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The theory of a young Earth simply doesn't match up with the evidence that we find. Radioactive dating using isochrons (look them up, they're quite interesting) show clearly an Earth on the close order of 4.5 billion years old. (Note: carbon 14 is very, very, very far from the only radioactive dating method, though it seems to be the only one many creationists have investigated.) The fact that these dates match up with other lines of evidence (e.g. coral shows both daily and yearly growth patterns. Ancient coral shows that there were more days in the year when they grew (the Earth's rotation is slowing as the Moon moves further away) and radioactive dates agree with the calculations from orbital mechanics.)

Then there are other problems - like the number of annual layers of snow found in ice cores around the world, some of which go back over 100,000 years. Dendochronology (using tree rings to date forests) have discovered some forests that go back 10,000 years.

What I find the most depressing is the implication (and sometimes actually voiced accusation) that millions of biologists, geologists, and physicists around the world accept standard geology simply out of malice in their hearts. On the contrary, the evidence points that way. In an earlier post I indicated a "fruitful academic-industry partnership" using standard geology to find oil - standard geology actually works. As I said, I'm not familiar with any comparable results from the young-Earth side.

Wow. Kudos to the Rob Moll. But I can only shake my head at lot of the comments by Young Earth Creationists here.

Quote from Steve Skeete: So I would again respectfully request that BobC put aside the seeming arrogance and humbly share a little of that "massive amount of evidence in support of evolution" in his next posting.

Actually I tried to do that last night, but my comments were so massive they exceeded the 1500 characters limit allowed here and they didn't go thru. After that I don't want to waste any more time on it. The flat-earthers here who deny evolution is a fact will just have to look up the evidence on their own. Most likely they will do nothing because they are happy in their fantasy world of supernatural magic and the 6,000 year old universe.

Another quote from Steve Skeete: This idea held by some that people are somehow irreversibly stuck in their opinions and cannot change is as false as people believing that they have the only "truth" and everybody else is an idiot.

Most people and all scientists will change their minds when new discoveries disprove old ideas. The creationists could care less about new discoveries. When they study evidence, if they bother to do that, they are not interested in educating themselves. They are not interested in finding out how wrong they are. They are only interested in finding problems that prove they have always been right. When they don't find problems with new evidence, they invent problems. According to the creationists, the Bible was written by god, god is smarter than all 21st century scientists, so any new scientific discoveries are meaningless if they conflict with the word of god. This is why I'm convinced creationists are a total waste of time. I'm also convinced the world will be a better place when the world is rid of all creationists. This will take time, maybe centuries, because of the problem called "religious brainwashing of 5 year olds".

Consider: Of the hundreds of prophecies in the Bible, other than those relating to time beyond the present, every single one of them have been accurately fulfilled. That goes a bit beyond the standard .05 (or even .01) level of probability. The chance of such accuracy happening by chance has been compared (as I recall the example) to having a span of silver dollars spread over an area the size of Texas to a depth of one foot; and one of those coins has a red mark on its underside. The probability of someone walking blindfolded through that terrain and randomly picking up one coin and having it be the one with the red mark is equivalent to the probability of all these prophecies--made over a few thousand years by a variety of believers--being accurately fulfilled.

Unless one proposes (1) fraud, i.e., "prophecies" written after the fact, or (2) that there must have been a number of clairvoyants in the family tree of believers, this unlikely accuracy would seem to support the idea of an all-knowing "Revealer" of future events communicating to and through these prophets.

Then, to follow this latter option up, perhaps there is such a thing as "revealed" Truth; not only truths discovered through finite human senses. And because empirically discovered (or proposed) "facts" have often had to be revised or rejected throughout the history of science, it would seem that when revealed Truth conflicts with discovered truths, the former must be the trusted standard.

The evolutionary position, on the other hand, (the secular kind, not that fuzzy hybrid type suggesting that God used random chance processes as His means of creating) is based on the premise that events NEVER observed throughout history--something arising out of nothing, order randomly emerging out of chaos, evolution ("better living through chemistry"?) rather than devolution or entrophy as the process describing development--somehow are the rational explanation of all that is. Now that's Faith with a capital "F."

And, while the Revealer hasn't elected to inform us mere mortals how He did it, He does say that He simply spoke all things into existence. (I wouldn't claim to know what that implies--whether a dramatic moment or a process--but until proven otherwise, I'll go with childlike faith and believe that it was a miraculous, instantaneous series of events; though I won't be disappointed if He tells me someday when I'm in His presence that it was a process of some sort, or that His work was spread over more than 6 days.)

In short, creationism is a faith perspective on why things are, and how; faith in a Revealer. But, belief in evolution is also a faith perspective; faith in a "theory"; not "proven" Facts. I choose to have faith in the Revealer (rather than in the "wisdom" of us little human beings), given His faithful trustworthiness to all who have believed on Him throughout history, as well as in my own life--100% of the time; not 99.9%.

HOWEVER, I am not optimistic that non-believers in the Revealer can be convinced by data or "facts" alone that theier is a supernatural realm or that a Supernatural Being created this world--through any process. It is my understanding that in order to have "eyes to see" one must have a heart and mind that are receptive to the revealing of Truth by the Spirit of God, the Great Revealer.

Cary - if your (apparent) picture of entropy were correct, snowflakes could never form. Order can and does arise out of chaos; indeed, in some circumstances it must. If chaos could not give rise to order, it would not truly be chaos, would it?

Ray Ingles, excellent post on how the DNA "tree" backs up the cladistic tree. IMO, genetics is the 800 pound gorilla that the YEC's haven't yet begun to attempt to tackle. It will be a very tall order.

Cary said: But, belief in evolution is also a faith perspective; faith in a "theory"; not "proven" Facts.

What if he said this: But, belief in gravity is also a faith perspective; faith in a "theory"; not "proven" Facts.

Why is it only evolution the creationists have a problem with? Maybe there is no gravity. Instead maybe there's invisible angels holding people down so they don't drift off into space. Creationists have a problem with evolution because it takes away god's most important job, making animals and plants out of nothing.

Cary also said: The evolutionary position, on the other hand, (the secular kind, not that fuzzy hybrid type suggesting that God used random chance processes as His means of creating) is based on the premise that events NEVER observed throughout history--something arising out of nothing, order randomly emerging out of chaos...

"events NEVER observed" is a misconception. Scientists can see the history of life with their own eyes in the DNA of humans and other animals. From DNA analysis, scientists can determine evolutionary relationships and can determine in great detail how species evolved. People who don't understand this new genetic evidence should read "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by the biologist Sean B. Carroll.

"order randomly emerging out of chaos" is a misconception. Natural selection is not random. Animals who have what it takes to become parents pass on their genes to the next generation. There is nothing random about it.

BobC, I never did apologize for my knee-jerk reaction in calling you a stupid moron, so let me do that now. You remained calm, dispassionate and gracious even in the face of my tirade, and for that you are to be commended.

Now, let me criticize your comment about brainwashing a 5 year old. When I knee-jerked earlier it was because I had detected a Dawkinsian Universalist tilt to your comments. That viewpoint does indeed permeate your postings, especially the comments on brainwashing, your belief that the world will be better off without creationists, etc. Taken to its philosophical and political conclusion, Dawkins's Universalist beliefs will result in severe losses of freedom in service of the Universalist notion of the greater good. Indeed, in Europe where this outlook is embedded in the EU, the MEP's have lately pontificated from on high that creationism is a threat to human rights!

Science in itself of course is not the problem; rather, it's the use of science to serve the ends of non-scientific viewpoints such as radical egalitarianism and hyper-nondiscrimination that are worrisome. You seem to be a person who looks

(Hit post button too quickly) --

You seem to be a person who looks at the evidence, so I would encourage you to do so on this issue as well.

Ray, I'm not saying there is no order. I am saying it doesn't rise out of chaos, or randomly, but points to a Designer. (i.e., I'll bet the farm you could shake a box of "stuff" for a millennium and never have the symmetry and beauty of a single snowflake emerge; or a box of raw materials and have a completed watch emerge--even one that tells poor time; or a million monkeys typing and War and Peace emerge--shucks, I'd settle for a meaningful paragraph.)

BobC: No, no, no. Don't change the example on me. Gravity can be examined, tested, and demonstrated to be a consistent,lawful process; evolution cannot. Evolutionists make observations, see corrolations, and then make leaps of interpretation to fill in the gaps. Let's be honest about this, no one has EVER observed a transitional form or interspecies evolution. The genetic similarities observed between monkies and humans do not prove cause and effect, or one being the precursor of the other. It is, at least, an equally plausible inference (if you don't rule out the possibility of a common Creator behind it all and force everyone who considers themselves to be a scientist to wear only the Procustean lenses of evolutionary theory) that a Creator chose to create variety in combination with similarities. Who says the DNA of each kind has to be totally different or it proves that they share a common ancestry.

You make a logical slip or leap when you say, " Scientists can see the history of life with their own eyes in the DNA of humans and other animals. From DNA analysis, scientists can determine evolutionary relationships and can determine in great detail how species evolved." No, they don't "see" the history of life, they (who wish to) hypothesize it; they don't "determine" evolutionary relationships, they hypothesize them; and they don't "determine" ("in great detail"), they hypothesize. Guesses, hypotheses, myths, stories, call them what you will, but don't call it scientific "proof," "evidence," "data," etc., etc. They (and we all) observe things (imperfectly and with bias--always, all of us) and then we create meaning out of what we see. But the meaning we create is based on some assumptive foundation, some faith system, that we choose to believe and base our lives on. If I'm wrong, I go to my grave a fool in this life and never knowing that I was. If those who don't believe in a Creator (whether they're evolutionists or not) are wrong and there is a Creator to be faced after this life, then . . .

Cary - how is "shaking a box of stuff for a millenium" like the process that forms snowflakes? More to the point, how does it resemble the proposed process of evolution?

What a shame that a respected magazine has apparently succumbed to the ways of the world and is no longer interested in contending for/defending the faith. I, at one time, viewed the earth as being old; I was also a theistic evolutionist. I used to get mad at those Christians who couldn't see what science had clearly shown. After receiving my Ph.D. in Biochemistry, I decided to take a hard look at the whole issues of old earth v. young earth and evolution v. creation. Much to my surprise the closer I looked the more convinced I became that, contrary to what we all have been taught, the scientific data is much better explained from a young- earth and creation perspective. Consequently, I've had to change my tune.

Sorry, I did not read all of the comments before posting my own.

As both a micropaleontologist and a conservative/evangelical, I would like to point out that God NEVER lies and Satan can never create, only decieve. God created (in whatever manner) this universe. Therefore, the story presented to us in the rocks (and stars) has to be considered part of God's TRUTH, equal to God's Word as revealed in the scriptures. God will never decieve us, we must trust ALL God's revelations.
Many Christian paleontologist believe both: the data/facts presented to us in the rocks, and the scriptures (properly interpreted).

DiverCity, If this world could be without creationists there would be a huge improvement in human progress. There would be improved science education, more scientists, and better scientists. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting hunting down and shooting creationists. I work with these people and some of them are my friends. The solution is more education. The reason I was complaining about the religious brainwashing of young gullible children is the preacher gets to these kids long before their first science class. When they are in their first biology class, they have already been trained to distrust their science teacher. This is why I think creationism will not be eradicated for several centuries.

Cary, I strongly recommend you read this book, or at least read the very educational customer reviews on amazon.com - "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by the biologist Sean B. Carroll.

Here's the customer reviews on amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0393061639/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/103-2230059-1796624?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Why do creationists think that forensic debating tricks and semantic slights of hand will disprove evolution? Science isn't an adversarial court system. Scientists aren't trial lawyers, though both have codes of conduct about a certain sort of integrity.

As near as I can tell, science is a conversation about the predictability and reliability of scientific theory. You play by the rules, or you're not a legitimate part of the conversation. Richard Feynman is probably a good place for the interested layman to learn the rules.

As near as I can figure out, if want to displace evolution, you don't disprove it, you have to come up with extraordinary evidence for a theory that explains diversity and change, inferred and observed, in a way that is more exciting in coming up with new questions to be used in refining the body of theory. Evolution research dwindles into a page in science history, and the new theory inspires new questions for much fruitful research..which inspires more questions to research.

Evolution, as a body of theory, not A theory, did that, and still does that. Just go to any science research library and nose around. You'll have to move in if you want to read everything, as you'll be piled with more stuff, every day it's open...not to mention interlibrary loan for material that the library doesn't have, and the licensed internet sites.

Remember, "young" Earth Creationisn had already been pushed to a scientific backwater, mostly by geologists, a good while before Darwin and Wallace presented their "Theory of Natural Selection." If memory serves, Darwin said that they hadn't "proved" evolution, they didn't need to, that had already been done. What he and Wallace had set out to do was explain the main engines of biological diversity, which they did brilliantly.

An analogy might be aspirin. Nobody had much of an idea, until pretty recently, how aspirin worked, just that it did. Evolution was the same, until the theory of natural selection.

I'm an intelligent designer. I manipulate energy and matter. Why would I expect God to be like I am?

In any case, teleology has it's roots in pagan Greece, and I think it works far better in a polytheistic frame than a monotheistic view. You think about it.

I have a genetic time bomb in me that science stopped from exploding and killing me in a most horrible way. I"d have been dead ten years without Nobel prize winning research. Evolution explains it well, but ID only makes me wonder where I can go to sue my Intelligent Designer for sloppy work, pain, suffering and punitive damages.

After all, if one of my designs had so pernicious an effect, that's what would happen to me.

God proclaimed the universe in some incomprehensible way. God is probably not the God of gaps but the unknowable, period. (On the other hand, how would I know that?) If one is all knowing, all powerful and omnipresent, everything possible is inevitable, right? How can we comprehend that? However, since I'm not any of the above, I get to enjoy a few nice surprises and be challenged by the unexpected.

Evolution makes everything possible to become as it is, I guess. It's also fun. Young Earth creationism looks to be just a wish, by people afraid of the dark, instead of challenged by it.

Evolution may explain the evolution of altruism in humans and my genetic disease, but, it doesn't tell me how to love my enemies.

I'm not a doctor, but I am a graphics designer...an intelligent designer so to speak. I don't see evidence of theistic design. I see patterns, interacting with patterns. Patterns don't have to be intelligently designed. Patterning simply needs a few basic rules and some energy, and with interactions with other patterns, new possibilities and improbabilities appear for new patterns.

If I move a block of text to a different place in the work, a block of text is a set of complex patterns in itself, the interaction with the underlying layers' patterns produces new sets of interacting patterns, which I may or may not like, probably because we're pattern recognizing creatures. Some patterns are more useful than others, in our everyday lives. Utility becomes beauty?

That new complex set of interacting patterns may suggest to me newer patterns that I judge, and/or the client judges, that may be more appropriate for the job.

With natural selection, however, the adequacy of sets of patterns doesn't need an outside judge to judge its beauty. If it reproduces adequately, it's, well, adequate enough to keep interacting with the patterns of its environments.

Evolution isn't about perfection of design, it's about adequacy now. That explains my persistence of my genetic disease. It doesn't strike until one is of an age when most people's children are grown. One lives adequately long for basic reproduction. However, the disease stopped with me. I didn't have children, because I could predict the future...or just because I was busy being an intelligent designer and never got around to it.

In reference to patterns; does a pattern exist naturally that hasn't been set in motion by something greater. If you were able to just drop text on a page it would make no sense unless you give order to it. You say that it interacts with its own patterns, but what made those patterns? How does your mind recognize patterns? You know that pattern of text is man made because you do not see that pattern anywhere in nature.Say you were walking down the street and you found a pocket watch on the ground. You pick it up and start to examine it. You look at it's face, the ticking hands and feel the cold metal chain in your hand. You realize that someone has made this watch someone else has lost it. You don't think that this watch came together by accident. That all the complex gears, springs and screws came together by accident? Of course not it is something you would not find in out in the woods somewhere unless someone put it there. So how then can you not wonder how something that is infinitely more complex than a pocket watch be made by accident? Something such as DNA. Also if evolution is adequate for the creation and sustainment of life then how come there is no reason why the universe is held together; when on the atomic level there is no reason that atoms should be held together because gravity no longer effects them?

I enjoy these discussions because they challenge me in what I believe and why I believe them. This discussion seems to be about which theory has more logical “evidence.” I would like to add this to the on going discussion:

All science is not true.

In other words, there is bad science, science whose observations are skewed and whose and interpretations basis. The scientific method that is so easily believed, adhered to, and is the cornerstone of truth is tainted, contaminated, and corrupt by one’s own personal beliefs and experiences. To divorce the two, that is science and the person, is impossible. We are people, who do science. With that you get human error, human basis, and human neglect. So to say that science is “The Ultimate Authority” would be overlooking the foundations of science, that science is done by humans.

So when one says that they have facts, data, or evidence for their beliefs, don’t get to cocky, they are done my humans, how have a history of making mistakes. While, scientific research is valuable for life, (I just some antibiotics last week, thank you Mr. Biologist), It should not have the last word.

Believe, me, complexity is easy, it's simplicity that's hard. There is nothing mysterious about complexity, you just need time and energy. The universe apparently has plenty of both. As for "why" the universe exists at all, ask God, not me.

A pocket watch isn't flawed enough to be a non-man made object, or perfect enough, I would think, to be of supernatural design origin...unless maybe God is like a raku potterer. God has an aesthetic appreciation of the accidental in processes? Does that work in a teleological argument?

In any case, the pocket watch did come into being by "accident." After all, considering all the spermatozoa and all the eggs of the watchmaker's parents, what are the odds that that individual who could design/assemble the watch, should exist at all? The watchmaker and his/her watch would only be inevitable to an omnipresent God, right?

Not only that, but what about all the people before the watchmaker who refined horology, and all the people who have developed the metallurgical skills needed for the watch, and all the miners and refiners of the ores, the people who designed and made the watchmaker's tools, the crystal makers, not to mention the rubies?

The pocket watch came about not from a single intelligent designer, but because of evolution, biological and technological. That's a reason, I think, to reject teleology, which has never been Christian dogma, fit's polytheism better, I think, and has been controversial since before Christianity, let alone Darwin and Wallace.

I presume it's a quality mechanical watch. I love a good mechanical watch, though I have a couple of stylish and more accurate quartz watches. Maintenance cost wise, go with quartz for complications like chronographs. Unlike all natural me, my mechanical pocket watch can be restored to like new...probably better than new, as metallurgy has improved in its hundred and fifty year life. (Can be, but won't be. I like that it wears its history, and I'd rather not spend my limited resources that way, anyway.)

A good theory of quantum gravity will probably win you a Nobel Prize. Go for it. I think it's the missing piece in the hunt for the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Even if that should be realized, however, it still won't explain our existential feelings and fears. For that, maybe try Kant, a devout Christian, instead of Darwin? Darwin apparently had a crisis of faith after his daughter died.

http://www.radicalacademy.com/philkant1.htm

Frankly, however, I think it's a better use of my time for me to just try to practice the Golden Rule and keep busy. I may be an intelligent designer, but I'm not all that deep.

Cary...that's why it's called "Natural Selection." The box metaphor is a red herring. It wouldn't, couldn't, contain everything in the universe, past and present, that is needed for the interacting natural processes that can form a single snowflake...not to mention that nature probably very seldom stops with only a single snowflake. Why that may be is very interesting, don't you think? It takes a universe to make it snow on Earth.

On the other hand, one can learn a lot from shaking a box with stuff in it. For instance, of the stuff that's in it, what comes to the top after it's been shaken, settles to the bottom, and why? You'll probably need to shake a lot of boxes, in various sizes, for various time periods, with a lot of different stuff, in various sizes and materials, to form a body of reliably predictive theories of shaking stuff in boxes. Then there is applying theory for technological uses...and I'm sure there are many.

I'm predicting that if you shake a box of stuff for a thousand years...you'll die long before the thousand years is finished. Even if you pass on the experiment from generation to generation, you'll probably have lots of dust, because of friction wear, that will be quite interesting to analyze, if you can ask the right questions.

I am really amazed that this article has been posted in a "Christian" blog. This article speaks of "God of gaps", how can a "Christian" magazine not understand the all-sufficiency and inherency of the scripture. There are no such thing as gaps in God's word. Moll tells of the professor at Cedarville, who obviously does not trust in the sufficiency of scripture, because he sees the need to confirm what the scriptures say with evidence to prove or disprove the Word of God with the very creation of God Himself. Ironic.... talk about being blind to something that is right in front of your face. At the end of the article Moll quotes Mr. Moshier, who speaks about how young-earth creationism is like adding another thing you have to believe in to become a Christian... I cannot even begin to understand how he can say this. It is not one more thing to believe in, it is the basis of our belief.

"Ignorant tribesmen" were/are smart people. They had to make a living, just as most of us do. They had to have necessary skills for that, just as I do, anyway. I'm certain that they knew animal husbandry far better than I. However, should I need to learn animal husbandry...I have access to reliable information that they couldn't imagine. (In fact, my niece is planning upon becoming a vet, so the family is going to put that to practical use.)

The ancient tribesmen didn't know science, however, a systematic, often reductionistic study of the material world, by specialists, more or less. Tribesmen had/have a lot of social and religious obligations, often inextricable from working. They're great generalists, not specialists. Not that they didn't recognize individual talents.

They were keen observers of what they needed to observe, and part of that was human nature...whatever that is. They did good, they did not so good, they did the despicable, too. Learn from them, but don't copy them slavishly. They lived in their time and place, we live in ours, a very urban and very foreign time and place to them. They had an antipathy to us city slickers and suburbanites, but most of us don't have that luxury.

If something seems scientifically unlikely in Genesis, say in the story of Jacob's herd expansion, Genesis 30:35...I don't think that sheep and goats would have spotted lambs and kids because they saw a certain waterhole marking while mating. I'm sure that Jacob knew what he was doing, nevertheless. He was undoubtedly an intelligent, clever man...sometimes too clever for his own good. Something to keep in mind in our own lives.

The tribesmen didn't live in a cultural vacuum, either. Abraham, for instance, migrated, and met many different people along the way, not to mention when he arrived at his destination. Israel is the crossroads of continents, not some Shangri La. Information, ideas and stories traveled, even way back then.

Keeping a tribal identity in the crossroads of the continents was obviously a difficult thing to do...but they had help.

Typical, the heathen come out of there dark corners whenever their deluded ideas about evolution are questioned. To you evolutionists, truthfully, I don't think your the enemy, your just working for him. Seriously... how did you get to this point in your life where you hate God so much? Why. What happened to you? You love your sin more than you do God. And that's usually it too, folks. They don't want to give up the sin in their lives so they find some thing to take God's place. Ahh ohh eviluuution (drooling everywhere). Listen, somewhere along the line someone has fed you a corrupted idea of who GOD is and what it means to follow Him. You think life will be boring if you commit to Christ. It so sad. Have you guys any concept of what eternal life will be like? To be with family and friends in a perfect world/ No sickness. No pain. Eat all you want, never worry about weight. Glorified bodies (1 Corinthians 15:51-53). Having things to do that you'll love doing. No more complaining about work. And increased knowledge... my word you have no idea. The calf and the young lion and the fatling will be together. Can't wait to see that myself. (Isaiah 11:6-9) You don't, do you!

But, none of this should matter anyways because Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Now, if God created it, then He is the boss. He makes the rules. Your first priority is to do what He says, not adopt one of the most STUPID IDEAS in the history of the world which says your great great great great great grandpa was a monkey.

I wish somebody close to you would just shake you and wake you up. Think about it. You guys want as many people possible to believe life started with a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything. Then you accuse Christians of relying on faith. Are you kidding me!! You ACTually believe a cosmic soup of some kind came alive and out of it the first life form found someone to marry, and something to eat and slowly evolved into everything we see today! And this is in dozens of text books. This is precisely what they teach. Don't you dare accuse me of having faith and tell me evolution does not require faith. How ridiculous. The only way you could seriously believe such garbage is with faith. You need a lot more faith than any Christian does!

By the way, the Bible talks much about the state of the world around the time of Christ's return. These are referred to as the last days. Thought I'd let you evolutionist scoffers know your mentioned too:

"There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming (asking where is Jesus)? for since the fathers fell asleep (since your grandparent parents died), all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of (that means dumb on purpose), that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" 2 Peter 3:3-5

2 Peter 3:3-8 tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are "willingly ignorant" of the Creation and the Flood. In order to understand science and the Bible, we must not be ignorant of those two great events in earth’s history. 2 Peter is also a clear sign of the last days. Here's another one about the evilutionist:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

And this is to that guy BobC who said Darwin was not a racist. Did you all catch how BobC tried to twist Darwin's own words? It's almost comical if it weren't so sad. BobC posted on December 6, 2007,

"In his book, "The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life" he (Darwin) was not talking about the different races of humans. He was talking about different animal species. Darwin was most definitely NOT a racist."

Ahem.. Mr Bob, are you a magician as well as an evolutionist? How you can take the phrase "FAVORED RACES" and try and tell everybody this really means "animal species" is beyond me. Here is a quote from Darwin's own book, "The Descent of Man", in a chapter called "The Races of Man.", in which Darwin wrote:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the SAVAGE RACES throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now BETWEEN the NEGRO or AUSTRALIAN and the GORILLA" (1874, p. 178).

Hey, Bob! When Darwin uses the word RACES here was he talking about different animal species too? On more thing. You said Darwin he was buried at Westminster Abbey close to Sir Isaac Newton. Did you know Isaac Newton who was regarded by many as the greatest figure in the history of science wrote:

"The solar system itself could not have been produced by blind chance or fortuitous causes but only by a cause "very well skilled in mechanics and geometry."

Newton studies Bible prophecy and predicted the world would end in 2060. Personally, I think it's coming alot sooner, but that's a whole other discussion.

Let me tell you the 1800's was a really crazy time in our history where some strange ideas started. That's around the time when Charles Darwin's book, "The Origin of Species" came out in 1859. In fact, after Darwin claimed in his book that human beings had developed from a common ancestor they shared with monkeys, the search for fossils to support this scenario began. But some evolutionists believed that "half-monkey half-man" creatures might be found not only in fossils, but also living in various parts of the world. At the beginning of the 1900's the searches for the "half-monkey half-man" were the cause of many acts of savagery. One of these was the story of the pygmy Ota Benga.

Ota Benga was captured in the Congo by an evolutionist researcher called Samuel Verner in 1904. Ota, whose name meant "friend" in his own language, was 23 years old and married and the father of two children. But he was chained like an animal, put in a cage, and sent to the U.S.A. There, the evolutionary scientists put him in a cage with various species of monkey at the St. Louis World Fair and exhibited him as "the nearest link to man." Two years later they took him to Bronx Zoo in New York and displayed him with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla called Dinah and an orang-utan called Dohung as "man's oldest ancestors." The evolutionist director of the zoo, Dr. William T. Horniday, gave long talks about the pride it gave him to have the "missing link," and visitors treated Ota in his cage just like an animal. Unfortunately, things didn't work out that well for Ota Benga (the pygmy put on display in the 1904 St Louis World's Fair as evidence for evolution). Ota Benga eventually went insane and killed himself.

My friends, if you don't believe there is a God to make judgments, you better think again and you better make sure your right. Either the universe was designed, or it came about by random chance. These are the only options.

You want instant proof of God's creation look at yourself in the mirror. One human cell is more complicated than the space shuttle. Know what Polonium halos are? Look them up. These halos are solid scientific proof of the instantaneous creation spoken of in the Bible. Take an honest look at some examples of irreducible complexity too such as the eye and the complex cell and the flagellum. And I didn't even get into the list of fulfilled prophecies of the Bible like Israel being reborn as a nation again and the Jews returning to their land in 1948. Never before has a nation been destroyed, its people dispersed to the ends of the earth, and then, nearly two thousand years later, re-gathered to their homeland and re-established as a nation. The fact that Israel is a nation today could only have been an act of God, especially considering the Holocaust and the attempted genocide carried out against the Jews by Stalin. Look it up.

I sincerely hope and pray that all of you reading will give up this evolution lie from the devil and believe the truth concerning the reality of Hell, and give your life to Jesus, while you are alive. It is only in this lifetime in which you can repent (turn away from sin and receive Jesus).

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands." Hebrews 1:10

I'll just stop writing right now. Take care, folks.

Best regards,
apacallyps

apacallyps said: "Typical, the heathen come out of there dark corners whenever their deluded ideas about evolution are questioned."

This is the subject of this thread: “Many of us at Christian colleges really grieve at what a problem this young-earth creationism makes for the Christian witness. It’s almost like they’re adding another thing you have to believe to become a Christian. It’s like saying, You have to believe the world is flat to be a Christian, and that’s absolutely unreasonable.”

The subject of this thread is not evolution being questioned. The subject of this thread is young-earth creationism is equal to a belief the earth is flat.

It would be impossible to find any competent scientist who would agree the earth is less than 4 billion years old. It would be impossible to find any competent scientist who would agree the universe is less than 13 billion years old. It would be impossible to find any competent scientist who would agree people were magically created.

The creationists have no evidence for their belief in supernatural magic, so what they do is quote mine scientists to spread lies about them. It makes me quite a bit angry to listen to a Christian claim Darwin, who hated slavery, was a racist, when it was Christians who owned all the slaves, and it was Christians who used the Bible to justify their immorality. Christians have a terrible history and they should be ashamed of it.

By the way, I don't think the many Christians here who completely accept evolution appreciate being called "heathen" and you, apacallyps, owe them an apology.

"...perhaps more than you want me would wish?" I must be getting tired. Let's just try: "...perhaps more than you want." I'm going to go listen to a friend's reggae music radio show. Ja rules? Ja has inspired some righteous music, mon. Too bad Jamaica is so sadly homophobic.

"I sincerely hope and pray that all of you reading will give up this evolution lie from the devil and believe the truth concerning the reality of Hell, and give your life to Jesus, while you are alive. It is only in this lifetime in which you can repent (turn away from sin and receive Jesus)."

When dishonest creationists are not busy quote mining scientists to spread lies about them, they are threatening anyone who disagrees with their childish belief in magic with torture. Your "reality of Hell" I would call the stupidity of a sick mind. I never met a scientist who threatened anyone with torture, but Christians do this every day. I can't imagine anything more immoral than threatening people with torture, and the Christians who do this should be ashamed of themselves.

Apparently to be a creationist a person has to be dishonest, has to be willing to threaten people, has to reject almost all of science, and has to believe in the most childish things imaginable.

BobC wrote, "The creationists have no evidence for their belief in supernatural magic;"

I already said Polonium halos. Look it up, dimwit. This is solid scientific proof of the instantaneous creation spoken of in the Bible. YES, scientist Robert Gentry discovered them. So what. What difference does that make? Polonium halos exist and the research was peer reviewed and published. Typical, Gentry's funding was halted once they found out his discovery proved Creation. And another evidence I gave you are examples of irreducible complexity such as the eye and the complex cell and the flagellum. If I said with a little rain, wind, and some erosion over a few millions years, the faces of four American presidents on Mount Rushmore were created you wouldn't believe me. And you'd be right. But, somehow you believe DNA made itself out of nothing and produced everything we see today. Think about it.

BobC wrote, "So what they (Christians) do is quote mine scien1O?ZV{c spread lies about them.

Oh Pl-eeeee-ze!! Just because a person uses a quote doesn't mean it's not true. Everyone has the right to be stupid but you abuse the privilege. What are you in grade two?

BobC wrote, "It makes me quite a bit angry to listen to a Christian claim Darwin, who hated slavery, was a racist."

Ooooohh. The silly evilutionist is getting angweee. Typical you ignore my question so I'll ask it again. This is a quote from Darwin's own book, "The Descent of Man," in a chapter called "The Races of Man." If Darwin wasn't a racist then please explain what he meant when he wrote:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the SAVAGE RACES throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now BETWEEN the NEGRO or AUSTRALIAN and the GORILLA" (1874, p. 178).

Oh, yeah, the other thing: What would happen if he said it today?

BobC wrote, "Christians have a terrible history and they should be ashamed of it."

First off, mankind has a terrible history and that's why Jesus Christ came and died on the Cross. He loves you so much He wants you to come to Heaven. Even after we disobeyed God, and left Him, and deserted His Will for our life. He still came to try and win us back. He died on the Cross. His blood is available to pay for your sins if you'll just ask Him. You're a sinner Bob... you're a sinner.. and you need a Savior. Secondly, I'm not ashamed of Christian history one bit! This notion a person is somehow less-educated if they believe in a Creator is nonsense. Most every branch of science was started by Christians or at least people who believed in a deity. Galileo Galilei quite often referred to as the "father of modern astronomy, physics and science," said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Obviously you do, Bob. You evolutionists are like leaches and you've taken over most everything the Christians started. Yes, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were once Christian schools, funded by the government and families that could afford it. Most of the colleges in the United States that started over 300 years ago were Bible-proclaiming schools originally. It's you and your Darwinian ilk who started permeated universities by the mid 1800s and began destroying good Godly teachers. Now look at your Universities - an infestation of liberal nut cases who favor America's enemies over America itself! (ie, Iran's president Ahmadinnerjacket's invitation at Columbia University to speak - they clapped and cheered him on!!).

Bob. Your ridiculous little opinion has been noted. And I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem.

Best regards,
apacallyps

Oh one final PS, I apologize for any spelling mistakes.

I was sad to read Moshier's words in the last paragraph. I would daresay that the main historic position of the Church has been young earth creation. It is primarily only in more recent times that the Church has sought to accommodate its views to "scientists" and believe in millions of years. The requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible. The Bible's simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. A Christian cannot just ignore part of the Scripture and still claim to be a Christian. Unlike Moshier's statement, the Bible never claims that the world is flat. It does, however, claim frequently that the earth was made by a Creator God. Call me a literalist for my interpretation of the Bible, but that is what I am, and that, I believe very strongly, is how the Bible is to be taken, and I unashamedly hold to that.

Austen DuBois wrote, "The Bible's simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. A Christian cannot just ignore part of the Scripture and still claim to be a Christian. Call me a literalist for my interpretation of the Bible, but that is what I am, and that, I believe very strongly, is how the Bible is to be taken, and I unashamedly hold to that."

AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. BROTHER!

100% CORRECT!

Best regards,
apacallyps

BobC, Scientist Extraordinairre. I humbly bow to your superior Scientific acumen. But, (in the spirit of Columbo) there are just one, or two . . . or three . . . or ??? items in the Deep Scientific Reservoire of overwhelming data from which Objective Evolutionists draw their conclusions that have me confused. I'm sure you can clear things up for me so that I can join you as a True Believer on that Mount of Evolutionary Fact. I was googling along, collecting my own stash of supports for my newly-fitted evolutionist-lenses-for-making-sense-of-the-world when I came across, for starters, Exhibits A, B, and C for our case--Piltdown Man, peppered moths, and Haeckel's famous embryo drawings (still prominent in intro biology texts across this land)--when to my considerable disconcertation I found that dreaded anti-Science word "HOAX" paired with each of these Evolutionary Facts. Please tell me it ain't so; please reassure me, before I proclaim to all my backwoods, naive Young Earth Christian friends, that I have finally reached the State of Evolutionary Enlightenment, please, please tell me that these claims of Hoaxterhood are wrong, wrong, wrong and that I shan't run into any further embarrassing claims which surely have been foisted upon us Evolutionists by them wascally and deceptive (though stoopid) Christian Young Earth Creationists.

And, while I am teaming up with you against my former friends, help me, too, to get our story straight about them dastardly Christian racists who prompted, promoted, and perpetuated slavery until our favorite President, the well-known Evolutionary Athiest, Abraham Lincoln, finally freed them. I plead your assistance on this front as well since while I was googling "slavery," a troubling name kept popping up in conjunction with that term, namely, "William Wilberforce." Why "they" even claimed that the oldest private African American university in the U.S. is named Wilberforce University! Surely a pure coincidence (It's a common name, probably unrelated to this William Wilberforce guy, right?), or maybe a HOAX promoted by them ignorant Christian types who we both know were the Sole Promoters of slavery. And, just to be clear, I'm with you: Darwin couldn't have been a racist. After all, he was an Athiest and an Evolutionist and with that combination of humanitarian commitments (Oh, yeah, while I'm on the subject and before my former Christian friends play that familiar old card about all the early universities--Harvard, etc., etc.--being founded as Christian institutions of higher ed., please remind me of our own long list of prominent universities (or hospitals, or abolitionist movements, or . . . well, anything humanitarian, noble, and Scientific) that I can trump their list with. We do have such a list, don't we??

But seriously, BobC, I'll see you and raise you one: I will commit to go read those Amazon customer reviews of Carroll's "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" if you will rent the flick, "Amazing Grace," to check out this Wilberforce guy. (I'm going to see him, live and in color, some day and I'd (very sincerely) like to have you join me.)

I would rather stand before God someday having taken the Bible at face value, believing that He created everything in six days and that the chronology of the Bible is straight forward and reliable. If I am wrong about those things because I trusted the Bible more than science (as explained by some), I doubt that I would be rebuked by God. But if I took the other approach and insisted on forcing the Bible to fit in with my understanding of science, I fear I would be rebuked. And I should be.

Personally, I think that many people spend more time fighting things they don't believe in this world than truly searching for the TRUTH of what they do believe. I think it's sad that so many people post on here and bash each other when most likely, the majority of them probably have no idea what the other person truly believes and why.
As for myself... I'm not claiming to know why everyone believes the way they do. However, I believe that God doesn't lie and that scripture is the infallible Word of God. If you change what scripture says just to fit it into your belief of science, then you are certainly in the wrong. Scripture cannot, and should not, be changed. I also believe in the young earth model of creationism based on a literal reading of Genesis. I truly believe that if God intended for creation to be any other way, He would have told us in scripture that there were gaps, or that He chose evolution to be the form of creation, or etc etc, but He didn't. He chose to tell us that He created the universe and everything in it, including the earth and man, in six days. No gaps... no evolving. Everything else that human beings come up with to believe is becuase they choose not to believe in the literal text of the scriptures. I'd rather believe scripture coming from an all Powerful God Creator than believe something by any earthly man.

Young Earth creationist start with the premise that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that they should expect such an account to be accurate. So they look at Genesis and they say that it looks like God created the world in 6 days and the rest of the bible seems to suggest that they world is less than 10,000 years old. So they start with this assumption and begin to analyze the scientific data. So the Christian presupposition is "the Bible is true." Is that any less rational than to being with the assumption that everything must have a physical and natural causes to the exclusion of any and every supernatural cause? At their preliminary level both are unfounded and absent of support. There is no reason to choose one above the other, aside from sheer will. If faith is belief in something without proof than you could say both are built upon faith. Now consider the conclusion of such faith. If you believe the Bible is true than you see than men are destined for separation from their loving God because of their sinful deeds. If you put your faith in evolution you believe the world is utterly arbitrary, or the result of natural selection. Either way your purpose in life is to get as much as you can out of it because you only live once. It is a hopeless and sad existence. You may say that young-earth creationism is bad science (I disagree) but I do not agree with you when you say that science is the end-all in life. You have the right and the ability to choose whatever you want to believe, but the accuracy of your belief is not up to you. I believe that God sent his Son to die so he could receive the penalty of eternal death that every man deserves because of his sin. He was raised again on the third day and is sitting at the right hand of his Father. All that is required to receive the eternal life that was made available from this is faith in it.

"...The requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible."

No, that is pro-slavery apologetics. In any case, there doesn't seem to be a "whole teaching of the Bible," except that is: there is but One God. Even that occasionally seems a little fuzzy, at least from my dreadful "post-modernist" vantage point, but I'll accept that as the overarching point of the Bible.

Many Bible teachings, yes, but a "whole teaching?" The pro-slavery apologists had endless proof texts, both from the Old and New Testaments, to support them. They are pretty much the ones who came up with your requirement for being a Christian.

The only requirements, as near as I can tell, for being a Christian are are to affirm the creed of God the father, Son and Holy Ghost, being baptized and taking communion. I have met those requirements.

I would hope loving justice, charity, kindness, mercy and the Golden Rule would be requirements, but they obviously are not.

It's important to carefully define what you mean by different words. For example, "creationist" is used to mean "young earth creationist" or "anyone who believes that the universe was created, regardless of when". Similarly, "young earth creationism" can mean any view believing that the earth was created recently, or acceptance of the standard popular version that includes flood geology, creation science, and similar claims that are characterized by theological, exegetical, and scientific error.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He is perfectly capable of creating humans using evolution or not using evolution. Therefore, evolution is no argument for atheism. It is merely a model of how God created, just as gravity is a model of one aspect of how God runs the universe. Of course atheists studying such topics don't acknowledge God's role, but that shouldn't stop us from dismissing evolution versus separate creation as a matter for biologists and paleontologists to investigate-what matters is knowing that God achieved it. Randomness is no problem for God, either.

In their zeal to promote young earth claims, creation scientists regularly neglect the gospel and do not make honest arguments. The moon dust argument mentioned above is even acknowledged to be wrong by Answers in Genesis, though their retraction misrepresents it as a conclusion reached by young earthers with new evidence rather than after years of old earthers pointing out old evidence. As a Christian and a paleontologist, I have not encountered any young earth or antievolutionary argument that was correct. Of course, advocates of evolutionary atheism make plenty of incorrect claims about the implications of evolution, often repeated by Christians as if Dawkins et al. were theologically credible authorities. All evolution implies is a description of biological processes.

Wilberforce, while an evangelical, obviously wasn't a conservative Christian by today's standards.

Alas, where has the progressive spirit of evangelicalism gone? It died with the primacy of personal piety and theatrically emotional born-again experience over a love of justice. Announcing that one was reliably of the supernatural, born-again race, which just happened to be "white," and therefore not a threat to white privilege, became the main thrust of the evangelical movement.

Charity became a way of manipulating people in crisis to do one's bidding, or God would smite them, forever more. (A gross simplification, of course.) Literal interpretation became the requirement for being a Christian, in order to use all those slavery condoning verses most effectively.

Wilberforce remained an Anglican after his religious experience. He led the parliamentary efforts against slavery mainly because Quakers were forbidden to be MP's at that time. A great man who stepped up to the plate.

The first English abolitionist organization was founded by Quakers, hardly conservative Christians. The Quakers were also the early leaders of abolitionism in the US.

I really must respond to some of BobC's comments.

It is easy to encompass evolutionist theory within Chustian belief simply by rejecting Darwin and Dawkin's insistence on mutation being random and believing it do be divinely directed.So many Christians who reject evolution must do so for other reasons than mere religious belief.

For myself I can say that the reason is that the whole theory does not stand up to critical intellectual analysis for 5 minutes. It violates the rules of logic, of science, of evidence, of ethics, and even of scientific theory itself.

The latter because a valid scientific theory has to be: testable by experiment; open to possible disproof; and predictive. evolutionary theory meets none of these criteria.

"of ethics" because the inescapeable conclusion of Darwinism is not just that mankind is of no more importance than a bedbug, but that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Ethics and morality become meaningless words, "natural selection" means survival of the fittest at the personal level, and laws are mere instruments for the strong to oppress the weak.

But humans know instinctively that this is not the case and natural selection could not produce a species that is instinctively opposed to it's own logiical conclusions (despite Dawkin's feeble efforts to argue otherwise).

My faith in the Risen Jesus is by experience, my rejection of Darwin is by intellect. Poor BobC has (as yet) no experience of Jesus and no experience of evolution either (who has?) and his beliefs are derived from the wrtings of those equally lacking both experience and light.

I've just remembered that this post wasn't originally about evolution, but about young earth creationism. Unfortunately polemicists on both sides insist on getting very different concepts muddled up.

One certainly doesn't have to believe in a young earth just because one rejects Darwinism. Those who do believe in the idea, start from a complete misunderstanding the the Genesis creation story. This was not written in 1611 in English, but thousands of years earlier in early Hebrew and it was not written for pedantic scientists, but for all people through the ages.

If people read what the account actually says - and understand the origin of "yawm" - the Hebrew word for "day" which basically means "warm" but has many other applications, including "eon," then they will not come up with such silly ideas as "there was light before God made the sun" and they will see in Genesis 1 a clear account of the gradual development of planet Earth and life thereon.

Of course, the evidence for an old earth and an older universe is enormous. That just means that God's plan exposed in the New Testament is so much the greater.

Equally, the evidence for a universe - from atomic partical level to galactic level - of intelligent design is even more enormous. Those who argue otherwise reveal that their own encompassing dogmas are as irrational and driving as those of any religious bigot.

I, for one, am confused by your comments, Greg; not sure where you're coming from. You seem to argue both sides of various coins.

This exchange has gone on for a considerable span so, without scrolling back through multiple posts, I'm not sure where your quote, "...The requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible" comes from. However, that aside, I believe the historical common core defining what it means to be a Christian is understood to be this: (1) accepting that God is, and that the Bible is his inspired Word, His Truth (i.e., not just the wisdom of a handful of men over the ages, or a great piece of literature, or for that matter, mythology), (2) accepting that Jesus is His Son and that He spoke truth when He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6), and therefore, (3) affirming with Paul, that if we "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" we "will be saved" (Acts 16:31).

Everything else (e.g., being baptized, taking communion, going to church, following the Golden Rule, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with Him, etc., etc.) are all good things; but not essential to being a Christian or going to heaven. After all, the thief dying alongside Jesus on the cross didn't have time to do any such things and yet, when he expressed faith in Christ by asking Jesus to remember him in His kingdom, Jesus told him that very day he would be with Him in paradise.

However, watch out for the cut-and-paste approach to Scripture. Once we fall into that post-modern "Your truth/My truth" thinking we have no basis for trusting that anything in the Bible is true; after all, then Truth is based on simply what you or I think, feel, believe, or like. Certainly, many have misused the Bible, but that doesn't disqualify its Truthfulness. Sometimes we human representatives of Christ (whose Spirit, we believe, dwells within us) are very frail and faulty reflections of Him, but that doesn't mean He or His Father's Word is misguided, or only partially true.

I can't comprehend why God chose to save sinners, or allow us the incredible privilege of being instruments of His grace, but He did; and I will be eternally grateful.

As to the slavery issue: That was a human invention; not a Christian invention (though Christians as well as unbelievers had slaves). I would submit that, were it not for Christians, and God's work through His people, we would still have slaves. Ethics and morality would not emerge in a naturalistic, evolutionary world. Survival of the fittest would suggest that the strong rule. Look out for number one. It's a jungle out there. Every man/woman for themselves. Grace, mercy, love, forgiveness, etc., etc., don't promote my survival. Turn the other cheek and I'm a dead man. On this one thing, Freud was right: We are fundamentally selfisg beings. And try as hard as the secular evolutionists might to suggest that positive values would have emerged for self-preservation, all we have to do is listen to tonight's news (or read yesterday's history) to see who wiped out a crowd of people because they had a bad day, who committed a suicide bombing because Allah will be pleased, to know that human beings are sinners by nature and the old human race is not evolving in a better direction.

Now Peter. . . . As long as we're getting into the Hebrew, let's tell the whole story. According to Hebrew scholars, whenever the terms "evening" and "morning" are used together, as in "There was evening and there was morning--the first day" (Gen. 1:5) Hebrew text is referring to 24 hour periods.

In addition, when the little article, "the" preceeds "day," as in "the first day," "the second day," etc. in the Hebrew it is referring to a 24 hour period.

If this discussion is to lead toward scholarly elucidation of the text (for those of us who take the text seriously and as inspired), we can't be selective in pulling a word out of context; that's poor hermeneutics; just like proof-texting is.

Cary, you're just making proclamations, from a near biblio-idolatrous position, I think. God can get away with that, what God proclaims is as it is. However, humans have to do work, I would hope.

We're human, we can't know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as they say in courtroom scenes. Only God could be capable of that, I would think. We can strive towards truth, I think, strive towards God. I would say that Darwin did that, limited as he, me and we can be.

The Bible is the authoritative collection of books on journeys towards truth, the One God, but it can't the truth. How could we know? If you knew that, you would be God.

Technically, I think, "myth" is the story of the gods, so the Bible isn't a myth. Though, as in the opening of Genesis, with the seven planetary gods of the Near East efficiently and anonymously dispatched, it addresses mythic belief...and assures us that we can reject it as not the truth, but a wrong way street, but maybe we reject that with heavy social consequences. Yet, striving towards truth is worth the effort.

Evolution has been accused of being "worldly" knowledge, but I've always understood worldly to mean things like knowing the finest Scotch, how and when to double down on blackjack, how much a classy call-girl costs...you don't need to know that information in order to try to practice the Golden Rule. However, having studied sociology...maybe it can help after all, come to think of it.

Evolution theory is practical knowledge, and something that can always be refined, but never perfected You can use it to find oil deposits, for instance. Figure out why I have a mutant gene...

Sure, it's also an origins story, if you wish it so, and one that, even with the day-age theory, which only roughly meshes with a "literal" reading of Genesis, is misleading...misleading you from really appreciating Genesis.

If you attach evolution with Genesis, you're missing the forest and focusing on a tree...an idolatrous impulse, don't you think? My ancient Norwegian ancestors worshiped trees...but I know how photosynthesis created enough oxygen to make possible the evolution of animals...and eventually me. You don't get that knowledge worshiping trees. I appreciate them for what they are...trees, not supernatural entities that must be appeased, or else.

By the way, DNA wise, there isn't all that much difference between the ash tree in my yard and me. But, little details accumulate, right? It's called natural selection.

Randomness is a state of possibilities, not a state were everything carefully avoids everything else, lest something happens. When something bumps into something else, the interaction creates a sort of arrow in time, making some things more likely, and other things less likely. With time and energy...you have the recipe for complexity, vast numbers of interacting patterns on patterns, always creating new probabilities and improbabilities...it's lots of fun to tease out.

Given the number of spermatozoa and eggs that my parents probably had at the time I was being conceived, it's highly likely that I should NOT have come into being...but, I did. It was, however, highly likely that a healthy young couple would have had a child...or many, as they did. It's just the luck of the draw that I exist...and I could have done without that mutant gene that accidentally came with the ride.

Can I blame God's design for it, my parents for not knowing of the inheritable mutation, Satan...or that God knew of my future sins and planted a timebomb punishment in my genes...that had been passed on for who knows how many generations until it got to me?. Or, is it just something nicely explained by evolution, and I'm just unlucky? I don't have to blame anyone, not even me.

Two Nobel prizes were awarded for research on my disease and the resulting effective treatment, though there is no cure, and it's still caused me a lot of trouble.

Young Earth Creationists can be effective scientists, but in a limited, technical and blinkered way. Their minds are, as with most people's probably, compartmentalized, but not in a good way for today's scientists.

YEC as a scientific theory, explains and predicts very little, except that maybe God could have done better with the design of my DNA...but where could I sue God for incompetence? YEC just isn't cosmically fair, of justice served, and doesn't exactly portray God as being what is claimed of God.

God, is instead, apparently like in a myth...a quirky and capricious deity that must be appeased with superstitious rites that really don't make all that much rational sense anymore, instead of God, loved in awe.

YEC also suggests a certain arrogance...that God carefully orchestrated all the circumstances that led up to what is undoubtedly God's crowning glory of creation...little ol' me. I won't make that assumption, that I was inevitable to my parents and the world.

I have a big enough ego as it is...lol

Besides, I'm glad to be a descendant of primates...I love color vision. I'm a graphic artists, I use it all the time.

Most mammals don't. Too bad our common mammalian ancestor was probably nocturnal, however, as we could have had infrared vision as well. We don't know what we're missing.

Now is that cosmic fairness, Tweety has infrared vision and I don't? Evolution explains why, but YEC doesn't.

Sure, I'll accept "24 hours" as an interpretation of "evening" and "morning." Sort of. I doubt there was much going on in the way of accurate measurements, a day isn't exactly 24 hours, after all. As Genesis has a timeless opening chapter...day means day...as in the message of Genesis is significant for every day, for everybody.

With Genesis chapter one, I'm assured that today is not the worship day of one of the seven planetary gods, or whatever false thing that I think might be ruling my life that seems to demand worship and appeasement (like the religious right?) I don't have to appease the god of this day in 2007. I have better things to do. Today is the day to be in awe of the One God, God of all the days, as is every day...hey, take a day off every week to really enjoy it.

Today isn't Friga's day, Friday, Frigedæg, despite the name on the calander. It's a day without thinking about worshiping and appeasing her. She's a myth. I can just go about my day. It's just a day, my day, not her day.

I'm sure I don't know why YEC give so much significance and power to a superstitious number like Seven. (Well, I shamelessly lie, I suspect that I do.) There are seven days in Genesis to assure you, or at least me, of just the opposite. The number of days, seven is just an historical artifact, the result of ancient polytheistic misconceptions of what they saw and imagined to be in the night sky, not something to idolize with it's own, rather dubious, rite of "science."

I do rather envy there lack of light pollution, but what can you do? Well, some things...that's one reason we have modern science, after all.

The ancients were smart and very observant people, you have to be to tease out, with the naked eye, that planets move across the sky in a way that makes them different from stars, but they came to wrong conclusion of what they saw and imagined in the night.

Genesis suggests a different theory than planetary gods. The sun, moon, stars and the planets are just the sun, the moon, stars and planets, natural objects, not cosmic, supernatural actors.

We're quite fortunate to live in an age that demonstrates that quite well, and even to discover planets revolving around other stars way beyond our own, yet YEC seems to reject that demonstration.

The sun, moon, stars and planets are somehow locked into a supernatural plan, if not in a Satanic conspiracy...instead of being just what they are. Interesting objects, without supernatural significance, that we can learn a lot about, and maybe dream of visiting them some day. (As far as visiting the stars go, it's probably unlikely humanity will ever get to one, but I can dream, can't I?)

Read Genesis, don't idolize it.

Greg, Read Genesis? Why bother? It's childish nonsense.

4 minute YouTube video proves we are an ape species.

Kenneth Miller on Common Ancestry with Apes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c

The creationists should watch this and watch it again until they understand it. If they don't watch it or if they don't understand it, they should shut up about evolution.

who are they those people called creationists? for my knowledge God is the only creator of the universe and no one can performed or changed what is already done.so I really dont believe on what those people said about science and life because the only science man has to know its the Words of God and nobody else theory.i gladly read their thoughts but it cant changed my point of vue in my life. so they better think again and find the way to Jesus...

It's stiking to view the similarity between Greg's religious Universalism and Dawkins's secular Universalism. Two sides of the same coin, they are. Dawkins has his Zeitgeist of human progress, despite the supposed absence of a teleolgical framework within the confines of Darwinism. Daniel Dennett adopts the same kind of non-sensical philosophizing when he claims that gay rights are a "good" thing within human evolution. Again, one cannot pronounce within the Darwinist perspecive that anything is necessarily good or bad. Rather, it just is.

Similarly, Greg is absolutely fixated on racism, though I haven't ever seen him define it. In his world view, everyone of European ancestry is guilty of it until proven innocent, and the only way to prove oneself innocent is to become an anti-"white" racist oneself. It's really quite bizarre, yet extremely dangerous because Universalists with this hyper-Calvinist bent enjoy supremacy in elite institutions -- the Universalist, progressive march to nirvana. Did Western culture before the 1960's have any good attributes at all, Greg? (If you want to answer my question, you better act fast as my posts are at times for some reason getting removed by the censors here at CT Liveblog).

Your article Rob gives the impression that somehow the young earth creationist position should not be taken seriously by Christian Colleges - your sentence for instance 'The argument against creation science is usually that it's not science, it's religion, philosophy, theology. Whatever it is, it isn't science' and the quote of Rosin that geologists at Christian Universities 'just roll their eyes at the mention of flood geology' is not helpful to promote a listening spirit amongst genuine believers who are seeking to understand the truth about origins from a thoroughly Biblical perspective. It is vital that we listen and engage with the position of each other without building a wall of misundestandings between us. I accept that YECs can do the same with OECs and those who (though I do not agree with them) would call themselves Christian Evolutionists within such organisations as the Faraday Institute and some who would take this position within Christians in Science group. We must be so careful with our writing and speech here. It is well known that I hold a young earth position and have written on this in my book Genesis for Today (Day One 2005, 3rd edition). But I was happy to debate at last year's UCCF Word Alive with Dr. Alexander of the Faraday Institute in what most agreed was a courteous spirit where, though we took different positions, there was a mutual exchange between us which in my view was well received by both sides. With respect, I do not think that your article was written in that same courteous spirit.

A growing number of believers in the UK and USA are of a YEC view because they are convinced that the Bible does not allow physical death before Adam (not only in the expositional and exegetical analysis of Genesis 1-3, but more particularly the New Testament - passages such as 1 Corinthians 15 and Roman 5 are predicated upon the notion that Adam brought physical death into the world through the Fall). We also see that scientifically it makes sense. The evidence of information being the 3rd fundamental quantity in the Universe besides matter and energy, and that this produces the ordered structures in living systems is a powerful argument against natural selection with mutations producing increasing functional complexity. The notion that evolution can somehow work beyond the inexorable downward slide towards ever increasing harmful mutations, and create new functional forms is argued against in John Sanford's recent excellent book 'Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the genome'. To argue in my area of aerodynamics and thermodynamics that bird flight arose from non-flying reptile precursors is frankly to many thoughtful scientists a complete impossibility. Many old earth creationists of course agree with this position. They depart from us when it comes to the age of the earth. The evidence of the rocks and fossilisation may not convince all of flood geology, but thoroughly researched articles are appearing in the Creation technical literature which give a robust defence of such a position. The RATE (Radioactivity and the age of the earth) project of the Institute of Creation Research with scholarly inputs from Baumgardner, Snelling, Humphries and Austin cannot be regarded as unscientific as your earlier quote would suggest. That they cannot easily gain entrance into secular journals is not the fault of these excellent scientists; it is the overriding stranglehold that evolutionary philosophy maintains as a world view which no one is allowed to challenge (without fear of losing their jobs) that is stopping a genuine debate in schools and Universities in the UK and US. At the very least there should be a reasonable dialogue between the different positions within the Christian community, and certainly Christianity Today should properly reflect the positions held.

My point in writing is not to ask that you agree with my position, or to ask others in this blog to counter YEC. That has to be done by carefully written scholarly articles in the literature and conference debates. My point is simply that respect must surely be given to all who genuinely are Bible believers and love the Lord Jesus Christ for what He did for us in Redemption. I am convinced that there should be a thoughtful respect given to both sides of this debate and though I strongly disagree with the OEC and Christian Evolutionist / Theistic evolution position, I do ask for a cordial exchange between these opposing camps.

Sincerely

Professor Andy McIntosh - Leeds

It seems to me that science has been given way to much authority in the present time. I was watching a documentary on PBS and an evolutionist said, "No science should ever be regarded as absolute authority."

The world does not believe in absolute authority, but as Christians we know that the Bible is the absolute authority from God Himself. It is never a problem for me to trust the Bible over science because the Bible has always proven itself. The Bible is not a science book, but whenever it talks about science it is always totally accurate (such as talking about the earth's rotation, and being round, etc.). I don't think that the Hebrew structure of Genesis allows for an "old age earth" and therefore am inclined to believe in the young earth because of what the Bible says.

As in response to Bob C., you said that Genesis is nonsense. However, your you tube video is supposed to explain to me how we are really apes? For one thing, I'm not sure why I would believe a man made 4 min video on evolution over God's Word which has been around since the beginning of time and has never been able to be destroyed. Also, becuase evolution is a theory and not a fact, you can't really say that it will "prove" we are from apes. If it could prove it, evolution would be a fact... and it's not, it's also a theory, meaning that there is also faith involved in your beliefs just as there is faith to my beliefs in scripture. I'd be interested to find out if you've ever read Genesis or if you just choose to bash it because you don't care to change your mind.

That video you said to watch called, "Kenneth Miller on Common Ancestry with Apes," does not prove evolution one bit. Great great great great great great grandpa was not a chimp. Go ahead and believe that if you want I don't care, but stop lying to people! All we hear throughout that video is maybe it happened, or it could have been, probably...but they never show any proof. Miller says evolution is true because apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46 and somehow 2 chromosomes that make up the difference between man and ape fused together and viola! Humans!! Why! Why! Why are you so brainwashed BobC? We will now upgrade BobC's brain, please wait...searching...searching...still searching...sorry NO BRAIN found! Did you know that tobacco has 48 chromosomes? The exact same number as the apes. Next thing you'll tell me is chimps and tobacco are identical twins! By the way a bat has 44 chromosomes and an amoeba 50. If we are allowed to "continue evolving" we may someday be tobacco plants and maybe we may even become carp with 100, or maybe even the ultimate life form, a fern with 480 chromosomes! Don’t you believe it! God made this world and all life forms, as recorded in the Bible.

Over the last 2-3 days I have sat and read all of the comments to this blog. It amazes me at what people have said and it also hurts to know that there are some that take a theory such as evolution and make it 100% true. I am a christian going to a christian college and I grew up in a christian home. But I love science and I love how God made our existence so that we could know him more by what He has made. I don't know many more scientific facts or theories that have not been questioned in these comments yet, but I know my simple logic. I've questioned many things in my life because I can not take an answer that is just handed to me and believe it's true. I know that humans, animals, plants, and the whole universe are very complex and very organized. I also know that all of that organization could not just happened for so random reason that there had to be someone there to make it happen in such a special and particular way.

BobC I watched your video on youtube, and then thought I'm watching a video on youtube when I am a film major and I posts videos on youtube that are horribly incorrect. If you are going to come up with a video or some information please do it from something that is at least somewhat reliable. I have to give you much credit though throughout these posts you have questioned many things and brought many answers. But I have to ask you have you ever looked at the other side to see if there is anything possibly true that maybe you over looked before. I'm not coming to bash anyone and I am certainly surprised this is on a website called ChristianityToday but have you ever looked to see what others are saying instead of coming up with an answer right away and being defensive about it.

I wish I had every facts and every answers for every question out there to show that the Bible and that God are correct. But then it wouldn't be faith. I guess the over used analogy of the wind always comes to my mind. You can not see the wind yet you know it is there. I'm still a college student who is just jumping into this conversation to say thank you to those who are more knowledgeable and coming up with the answers I do not know.

Evolution is completely incompatible with the Creation account. Man did not come from a lesser life form. Genesis says that God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul. The human race started in the form we currently inhabit. No more, no less. There is zero proof of evolutionary transfer from one species to another, which is basically what evolution is trying to teach today. You can clearly see changes in species over time and environment, but this is not evolution, this is adaptation. It is totally illogical to believe we came from monkeys. The key word here is "believe." You either "believe" we came from monkeys, or you "believe" that we have a Creator God that brought everything into existence. Religion is about belief, so this would make evolution a religious worldview; one incompatible with the Christian worldview that includes creation. It's obvious that science doesn't have to prove either one for people to believe in it. Why believe the Biblical version of creation? The Bible has been proven true by history and archaeology time and time again. And, the Bible says that all scripture is "God-breathed," meaning the Holy Spirit guided the authors to write what they wrote. The Bible finally says that God cannot lie. In that, either the entire Bible, including the story of creation, is the complete and true Word of the Living God, or it is completely false. There's no middle road. Can Christians believe the Bible and science? Yes, but only science that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which evolution still harbors because we're still "at war" with it. There is NO empirical evidence of evolution, nor will there EVER be because it's false science. It's man's attempts to eliminate God from the equation, just as man has done and is trying to do from all public arenas, and many churches for that matter. Creation is true, evolution is false. It's that easy.----- Besides, the reason why we share DNA with other species is because we were all created from the same DIRT.

It is really interesting to me, like many others have said… that someone can have such a strong argument without really studying the other side. Maybe evolution really does have a lot of support and obviously much study has been done… but don’t underestimate the study done by Christian scientists and consider the support for a literal seven-day creation as stated in the Bible. It kind of makes me chuckle to see that a “You-Tube” video is considered a reliable source for “proof.” I guess you can make the same argument about a silly little “bible” full of nonsense right? But I challenge the evolutionist to not harden your heart and to open up your mind a little bit and sincerely seek to understand what Christians believe and why, what do you have to lose?? Obviously your life has no hope, what if you can find some? All the answers are in scripture. It's as simple as that. Every man knows there is a God, whether He denies it or not. Every human can not deny the order (not randomness) in Nature, and our inner understanding of right and wrong. Every man is without excuse. It is a choice whether or not to deny what you already know, or believe and seek to understand. Evolutionists base their knowledge on FAITH in the “big bang” and Christians base their FAITH on the Bible. I know this isn’t a discussion about being a Christian, but how can “Christians” say they believe in evolution? Anyone that claims to believe in the Bible can’t take only the pieces they choose and disregard the rest! If you claim Jesus as Lord of your life, how can you say He made a mistake in Genesis, and that it really doesn’t mean anything. It isn’t just the NT that is essential to a believer’s relationship with Christ. As was stated earlier in the blog, Jesus himself says How can you believe Him and not Moses? There is so much evidence for the History in the Bible… have you researched it as much as you have “evolution”?? I think only then can you make a fair argument, and only then I think you will have a harder time denying such an Awesome God!

I have not read every entry in this blog, but there seems to be a repeated presentation of a false dilemma: young earth creationism or evolution. One entry quoted Rosin's article
"the 45 percent of Americans who, for 25 years, have consistently agreed with the statement in a Gallup poll that 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'"

and then added: "That sounds to me like 45 percent of Americans are young earth creationists."

The earth can be billions of years old but God only created Adam and Eve 10-50,000 years ago. The earth can be billions of years old and still not have enough time for life to evolve, have many mass extinctions and reappear in complex forms. God can have created life at many points over the billions of years. This is old earth creationism or progressive creationism.

So the age issue should be separated from the issue of evolution. Natural processes explanations fall woefully short in explaining
1. the origin of the universe,
2. the origin of life in almost zero time 3.9 billion years ago when the earth was nearly molten.
3. the Cambrian explosion
4. the multiple sudden origin of new dinosaurs and ecologies after massive extinction events.

One writer who is now a young earth creationists saw the problems with evolution and concluded his only option was creationism which meant YOUNG EARTH creationism. Again a false dilemma. Both YE creationism and evolution seem seriously flawed to me. The best explanation of Scripture and the evidence is old earth, progressive creationism.

“Creation as Science” by Astronomer Hugh Ross is one of the earlier recommended readings. In it, Ross (No relation to Marcos Ross) provides the first and only alternate testable/falsifiable scientific model of our cosmic origins since Darwin. Young-Earthism does not and neither do Intelligent Design advocates. It provides nearly a hundred prediction comparisons for the four major views of origins science: Naturalistic Evolution, Theistic Evolution, Young-Earth Creationism, and Old-Earth/Progressive Creationism (Hugh Ross’ model).

John M in Richmond, do you think you are capable of discussing science without mentioning "Scripture"? Your ancient book of stupidity does not belong in any discussion about science.

Sally Kost said "It kind of makes me chuckle to see that a 'You-Tube' video is considered a reliable source for 'proof'.”

I assume you are talking about the video I recommended. Did you bother to watch it? Did you bother to try to understand it? The video was made possible by a lot of hard work. The genetic evidence it explains, while being only a tiny fraction of the evidence for evolution, is extremely powerful and should be enough to convince any sane person humans are an ape species.

Instead of discussing that video, you babble about your book of childish made-up stories. Christians are not interested in science. They are not able to understand science, and they make no effort to understand it. All they want to do is talk about their jesus god-man. Christians are the most boring people in the world. Yes, I know there are many exceptions. For example, the biologist in the video I recommended is a Catholic, and many Christians on this blog accept evolution. But the vast majority of American Christians believe in supernatural magic, and nothing could be more anti-science than that. A recent poll showed 87% of Americans either completely reject evolution, or they invoke god to invent and/or help evolution. This is disgraceful and the reason is the stupidity of the Christian religion.

I am a young earth Creationist. The real issue is the correct intrepretation of the evidence, and the presuppositions used to defend one's faith--whether one believes in evolution or Creation faith is involved. Because I consider the Bible to be truth, it is not to be excluded from consideration. According to the Genesis account there was no death before Adam's sin, Eve is the mother of all living, and all land animals were created on the sixth day of creation, meaning that dinasaurs lived along side man.With this information it is easy to see the earth as young, and the fossils being created due to the Great Flood. It all makes sense to me!

Carline said… “I am a young earth Creationist. The real issue is the correct interpretation of the evidence, and the presuppositions used to defend one's faith--whether one believes in evolution or Creation faith is involved.

D. Cochran replies… Respectfully, I am an ‘old’ old-Earth/Progressive Creationist. Please read “The Genesis Debate: Three views on the days of creation” by Hugh Ross and five other scholars (a virtual debate) and tell me the most accurate “interpretation.”

Catline said… According to the Genesis account there was no death before Adam's sin,

D. Cochran replies…
1. What about Satan? Wasn’t his banishment from heaven - death (spiritual death)?
2. Do you think a dinosaur never stepped on an ant, or Adam never swatted a mosquito?
3. What about the living plants eaten by animals, wasn’t that causing death?
4. What in scripture tells you that spiritual death was not the object of the reference to death?
5. If Dinosaurs were herbivores before Adam’s fall, did they have molars for eating plants? If so, when did their teeth change for meat eating teeth, as seen in the fossil record?

Does this all make sense to you? And, subject to scholarly interpretation, why do you think the Bible is a better revelation than His natural/cosmic revelation, which He made to be discovered and measured and tested (scientific method) with His gift of human intelligence?

The Deathtrap of Evolution

As parents, we are to “train up a child in the way he should go:”. In doing so, the child is directed to “remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth,”. So what are our educators presently doing? They are teaching our children that there is a tooth fairy that gives you a dollar for your lost tooth if you put it under your pillow at night. How about the teaching that there is a “Santa Claus” that flies through the air with reindeer, who comes down the chimney on Christmas Eve to deliver gifts that you wished for. I guess that those that live in apartment buildings have to have some other delivery fable taught.

Yes, I am pointing out the insanity of the practice of only teaching our students the “theory of evolution”. Creationism can hardly be taught, but the “Observations of Moses” can easily be taught our students, as a counter balance to the blind teaching of evolution. There is no evidence for evolution, except in the closed mind of blind academics, administrators, and scientists.

What circumstantial evidence is used to come to the conclusion of “evolution”? The very same evidence that (the “Observations of Moses”) states that there was “death by escalation”, meaning that death to life forms first came to the simplest of creatures in the water (out of sight of land dwellers), before escalating to higher life forms that already lived on land. With this position, you get the exact same results in the geologic record, but without the phantom “transitional forms”.

The atheist and evolutionist are motivated by the evil spirit of rebellion against God, whose goal is to destroy as much of mankind as possible. Take notice of their strategy, which is to only have the secular theories of science required and taught in public schools. But when it comes to teaching (the correct data) from the book of Genesis, they say “teach it in religion class, because it’s not science”. That is a bold face lie!! The very teaching of evolution is indoctrination into the religion of Atheism!! It is Satan’s mission to “deny” the reality of God and His Word, or at least “redefine” the scriptures, so that he can “destroy” all of mankind that he can.

How can the Observations of Moses not be science? If Moses was given an overview (six visions) of the 4.6 billion year history of our Earth and universe, and saw the several different life forms as they lived in the ancient past, how is that not science? Is science the “denial of reality”, and the “redefinition of history”? Does it seek to “destroy” the minds of our students? Take notice that evolutionists don’t want any other “theory” taught in science class. The truth is not afraid of exposure, but a falsehood is fearful of the light. Also take note that evolutionists require more evidence for "creation" than they do for their own beliefs.

The seven-day creationists, such as those who support Creation Science and Biblical Reality, are motivated by the desire to “rescue” mankind, by trying to convey the truth of history, and the reality of our existence. Theistic evolution, Day/Age, and “progressive” creationists deny the truth of God’s Word, and teach false doctrine. Creation Science teaches foolish doctrines, by denying scientific reality, and along with Ruin & Restoration, they end up redefining God’s Word. But at least they try to acknowledge the Eternal Spirit, His creation of our existence, and the truth of history.

However, this article is named “The Deathtrap of Evolution”, and for good reason. Since there indeed is a Creator, there is indeed a coming judgment of mankind, both modern and prehistoric. At the White Throne Judgment, every “remaining” human being, whether they be Homo Sapiens, Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, or original mankind, will stand trial and must give an account of their deeds while they lived on this Earth.

What sort of “an account” will an atheist or evolutionist be able to give? Will the excuse “I didn’t see any evidence” be accepted, and the person will be allowed to live forever in peace? Or will the option to remain in ignorance, and denial of the truth of Genesis (as written in the book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!”), be charged against the person, and they be thrown into the waiting Lake of Fire to be tormented forever?

Just imagine the laughter that many atheists and evolutionists now exhibit when the thought of a Creator is discussed. Now imagine the opposite when they find themselves standing in line, with tens of thousands of other humans, waiting to be judged by someone that they may have laughed at. Be assured that those that have done wrong against certain others, will be judged by that very same person, who will have the given authority to grant everlasting life or torment. This scenario would be discussed in another book, not yet written.

So what is the final conclusion? It is that the fossil and geologic record of the ancient past gives solid proof of the truth of Genesis, namely the “Observations of Moses”, without the need of non-existent “transitional forms” which the theory of evolution relies on. God first created, and then restored life on Earth after each extinction event.

Herman Cummings
Ephraim7@aol.com
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808

Firstly, there should not be any name calling, leave that to the toddlers! What is most important proving a theory wrong, discrediting someone , and then once that happens, what then? The Bible says in Matthew 13:24-30, (basically) Let the wheat and the tare grow together and when He comes He will do the separating. In other words, let them believe what they want, (they have a choices). I don't Ms. Rosin has any ideal what a Christian really is. To be a Christian is to be Christ like and to believe in Him. Let's not question, but pray and let God do the judging.

What strikes me as most fascinating, is that here in America, where we pride ourselves on free speech and freedom of Religion, we have those who don't tolerate freedom in science. As of late we are only aloud to talk religion to those who want to listen, but for get politics and we are told now by one of our own to forget science. Here is a prime example of modernism and evolution run a muck in a Christian's head. The promotion of free thinking should include freedom of science, since you have to have as much faith to believe in 4.6 billion year old earth as you do in a 6 thousand year old earth. It's just one is supposedly fact and the latter is supposedly religion, yet both have to be taken by faith... not fate.

it so frustrating to me that one can have such a strong argument without even looking at or acknowledging the other side of the issue. In the video we were asked to watch about evolution, I have a very hard time believing that we came from chimps. The video only said that this was something that could have happened. We are two chromosomes off what chimps and I find it very interesting that any human born with some chromosome difficiency is mentally or somewhat handicapped. this would seem like to me that even over time as we human started to evolve from chimps that humans would be all handicapped in some way. God made all things with the exact number of chromosomes needed to function properly and be exaclty as he wanted him them to be.

BobC, I watched the YouTube video that you posted and requested be viewed by those involved in this discussion. I would have definitely liked to have more information such as the full context of his presentation, his background and credentials, as well as the source of the information presented along with any other studies that verified that information. Others above do have a point. YouTube, though it might have some credibility at some times for some things, does not have the greatest reputation for being entirely accurate.

However, that aside, I do not deny that there are some similarities in the genetic structure of apes and humans. On the other hand I do deny that those similarities require the conclusion that it was evolution that created those similarities.

Just as Rembrandt paintings are recognizable because of certain uniform characteristics or similarities (even when the subject is different) and just as handwriting is unique and can be traced to a specific individual, so too would it stand to reason that if one being created everything there would be some similarities. It would make sense for all living things to bear some similarity since it was all created by one God.

One of the problems in a discussion like this--from the believers' perspective--is that because we believe the Bible to be God's Word, we believe what He has said, including the following:

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (I Corinthians 2:14)

Thus, apart from faith, or openness to the promptings of God's Spirit, God's Truths cannot be understood or seen as truth. His ways are higher than ours, (Isaiah 55:8,9) and seem like paradox to the human mind, at best; foolishness, at worst. (I Corinthians 3:19--"The wisdom of this world is foolishness before God.")

Similarly, Jesus pointed out that some things we discern only if we have "eyes to see and ears to hear"--meaning that they can be understood only through the eyes of faith as revealed by God. (But the secular scientist doesn't believe in any route to knowledge other than empirical study, whereas Christians believe that God's revelation, through His inspired Word, the historical life of His Son on earth, and the witness of His Spirit, are the necessary routes to ultimate Truth.

And, the consequence of ignoring the truth that is right before our eyes in creation, which the psalmist points out, "declares the glory of God" (its Creator), is severe. As Paul wrote to the Romans, "since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. . . . but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:20 ff.)

Thus, when we start from different foundations--human wisdom and empirical evidence alone, combined with the asssumption that there is no God vs. the foundation based in God's Wisdom and the person of Christ--we are destiined to come to different conclusions. Again, as Paul wrote, under inspiration, to the church in Corinth, "no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (I Corinthians 3:11)

Therefore, I am cautious about the possibility of coming to a common understanding by reason alone.

I think that the way that he is approaching this is from a stand point that feels good for everyone. When you try to make the world compromise for the sake of people then you dumb down what in fact your are trying to say. Why is it that when things are hard the way we deal with it is to through it out and try to find a happy medium. Where is it that Jesus took the easy route. Why is it that when we say that young earth standpoint is hard to defend, it is only because we are scared to study the data just in case we find out something against what we have been taught or have thought. Our job is to find out truth not compromise to make PEOPLE feel better. My question is what did you study other than your thoughts that you came to this conclusion?

I think that the way that he is approaching this is from a stand point that feels good for everyone. When you try to make the world compromise for the sake of people then you dumb down what in fact your are trying to say. Why is it that when things are hard the way we deal with it is to through it out and try to find a happy medium. Where is it that Jesus took the easy route. Why is it that when we say that young earth standpoint is hard to defend, it is only because we are scared to study the data just in case we find out something against what we have been taught or have thought. Our job is to find out truth not compromise to make PEOPLE feel better. My question is what did you study other than your thoughts that you came to this conclusion?

"Thus, when we start from different foundations--human wisdom and empirical evidence alone, combined with the asssumption that there is no God vs. the foundation based in God's Wisdom and the person of Christ--we are destiined to come to different conclusions."

cary, scientists don't make the assumption there is no god. They just don't use your invisible magician to explain anything.

Your use of "God's Wisdom and the person of Christ" to come to your conclusions prove you know nothing about science. Imagine a real scientist, while making a discovery, said "now we got to consider God's Wisdom and the person of Christ." He would be laughed at by everyone. It would be like a garbage man, while collecting garbage, considered god's wisdom and the person of christ. Your god's wisdom, whatever that is, has nothing to do with anything. Your magic man just gets in the way of understanding. May I please suggest you grow up and stop believing in the stupidity of the idea there's some invisible man in the clouds. God makes people stupid. This god idea is good for nothing but religious violence and massive ignorance.

Although I find compelling arguments in your article in regards to Christian evolutionists and the stir that is being caused by young-age Creationists, I beg to differ with your opinion. It is vital to realize that Christianity is a faith, however it is based on hard evidence found not only in Scripture (the Bible) but also in numerous historical accounts throughout the ages. There has been not only scientific evidence but also geological artifacts that support much of what the Bible claims to say. Although Christians differ in opinion on minor issues throughout the Bible, there is a lack of knowledge that comes into play that is the reason behind much of this differing. Whether that is by choice or by ignorance is for that person to know. Although Young Earth creationists hold firm to their belief that this way is the only way, there is a willingness from many organizations, including the Christian research Institute to explain and expound upon what you would call their "beliefs" or "opinions". Ultimately it comes down to whether or not you agree that the Bible is true and just because you believe it isn't true doesn't mean it is. It is like if I believed this computer I am typing on could fly. I could believe it all I want but it doesn't make it true because the facts and the reality shows that it isn't. Same with other thought processes, just because you believe it doesn't make it right.

I believe in creation. It is the only theory that explains the perfect, specific and intelligent design of earth and life on earth. Nothing so intricate could have been created by a big bang. The very reproductive system of all living things is detailed, specific and repetitive. The facts outweigh the opinions everyday.

I believe in creation. It is the only theory that explains the perfect, specific and intelligent design of earth and life on earth. Nothing so intricate could have been created by a big bang. The very reproductive system of all living things is detailed, specific and repetitive. The facts outweigh the opinions everyday.

BobC: I don't know where you got burnt about God, but it's clear that you've got a burr under your saddle. When you talk about Him you lose all objectivity and begin to resort to labeling and name-calling; not very objective or "scientific" of you. Not sure what your credentials are, but in all my years in academia or clinical practice, I never came across an informed person who resorted to such primitive tactics. FWIW, I have a masters and PhD and years of study in the sciences; so, agree or disagree, but don't stoop to talking about stupidity or ignorance. It doesn't become you--or your arguments.

You said, "cary, scientists don't make the assumption there is no god. They just don't use your invisible magician to explain anything." I never said scientists assume there is no God. Please sharpen your arguments; you are simply creating straw men and knocking them down, not discussing or debating. Some scientists believe in God; some don't. And many brilliant scientists do include God in their understanding of data and explanations of phenomena. And, to be fair, many brilliant scientists don't.

And again you say, "Your use of "God's Wisdom and the person of Christ" to come to your conclusions prove you know nothing about science. Imagine a real scientist, while making a discovery, said "now we got to consider God's Wisdom and the person of Christ." He would be laughed at by everyone." The reality (if you are interested in that, is that I use empirical science + God's Wisdom to come to conclusions. You, on the other hand, apparently only use empirical science. Seems to me you are limiting the sources of information you are willing to look at. Not very "scientific" of you, it seems to me. I should think that a real Truth-seeker would be willing to, and want to, look at all sources of information before coming to conclusions. Christian institutions of higher education study all perspectives on issues, those we agree with and those we don't (e.g. evolution, YE, OE, theistic evolution, etc.); I dare you to try introducing any comment about faith or scripture into a secular university debate, much more try to incorporate it in your teaching as a balancing position and just see the uproar the "freedom of speech," "open-minded" crowd raise. Oh, yeah; that's right, we've seen that demonstrated when a school proposed to teach intelligent design and evolution. Now, once again, who are the real Truth-seekers, the real tolerant ones, the truly open-minded?? Hmmmmm?

And, you go on, "It would be like a garbage man, while collecting garbage, considered god's wisdom and the person of christ." You bet your sweet bippie (whatever that is). I've worked as a garbage collector, as a maintenance worker, as a farmer, as a professor, as a scientist, a theologian, and a psychologist. And my marching orders are that whatever I do, I am to "do all to the glory of God"; and that includes keeping His wisdom in mind in all I do, and practicing the presence of Christ in my life.

And further, you say, "May I please suggest you grow up and stop believing in the stupidity of the idea there's some invisible man in the clouds." Hmmmm. A wise man, a king I believe he was, (and the father of the wisest man ever to live) once said, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' Hmmmmm: Wise man--BobC, Wise man--BobC. I guess I'll go with the wise man, until proven that BobC is the wise one.

And, by the way, I don't believe God is out there somewhere. I believe He's very close at hand. And I believe He is pursuing you--in love. He loves you (and me--that's even harder for me to believe) so much that He sent His Son to die in your place and mine, so we don't have to spend eternity separated from Him. "This god idea is good for nothing," you assert, cavalierly shaking your fist in the air at Him. Wrong on three counts, my friend: (1) He is not an "idea"; He is a person, (2) He is Goodness personified and the author of all that is good, and (3) not only is He not "nothing" or "good for nothing," He is Everything. John, an historical figure, who spent three years on this earth with the Son of God incarnate, wrote, "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)

Like I say, BobC, I've known a lot of folks angry at God, or the idea of God, or most likely, who have been burnt, disappointed, or hurt in some way by those claiming to be God's people; and you have that edge of bitterness in your comments. I just hope and, literally, pray, that someday before you leave this planet, you will discover not only that He is, but also, how much He loves you. So much that He gave His only Son to die for you. I have an only son and I sure don't have that kind of love for anyone that I would have given him up to die in another's place--much less for someone who hates me. (And all who believe in Him were once rebels, sinners running from Him.)

Scientist with young earth and old earth views will always continue debating and finding scientific evidence supporting their position. I think that there is enough scientific evidence on both sides to make it impossible to prove either of these views through scientific evidence alone. The fact is that the debate lies in a deeper issue. I think that at the core of the difference between these two views is that most followers of the old earth view hold the authority of the Bible above science, and interpret science based on the Bible. Most of the followers of the old earth view hold the authority of science above the Bible, or at least interpret the Bible based on scientific evidence. I think that before the science of the age of the earth is debated, there must first be an understanding and agreement on this issue.

Every where I look on this comment board I see BobC making posts. This seems confusing to me considering he wrote "This is why I'm convinced creationists are a total waste of time." Apparently not too much of a waste of time seeing as how many times you've written on this blog. By the way, I watched the youtube video which "proves" creationism is false and maybe it's just me but I couldn't help but notice that his presentation offered an "evolutionary hypothesis of common ancestry." A...hypothesis? Well, if we're in the business of promoting hypothesis as finalized proof we're all correct.
To those who adhere to christianity but also hold to an old earth and/or evolutionary position I have to ask a question, "What is the point of God within your framework?" God created the universe and left it be...at least for 4 billion years until he decided to begin to intervene in lives of men. Clearly this is what we see in the bible, God who is distant from creation for the overwhelmingly vast majority of supposed universal history! I also can't uderstand the problem of evil in this view and the fact that God is silent on something so imporant as evolution if indeed it were true. A final thought. Many here claim to be christians and are trying to fit, not science into the bible, but the bible into science. Which one has the ultimate authority for a Christian? (Sure to some that may seem like a cop-out but not if you are truly a christian). And I would propose that even in trying to fit the bible into science most actually aren't trying to fit it into science but into the world of scientists who have always rejected the bible. Just some thoughts.

I think it would be fair to characterize both creationists and evolutionists as seeing the world through their beliefs. All of us interpret data to a certain extent based on previously acquired knowledge that we believe to be truth. In the Rosin quote above, she disapproves of Professor Whitmore's looking for evidence of what he believes to be true. I would suggest that evolutionists exercise the same approach. Some very prominent evolutionists, Gould and Mayr for instance, have both admitted that the fossil record is woefully short on evidence of transitional species, yet in spite of this their adherence to that viewpoint was undiminished. They chose to interpret data according to their already formed viewpoint, even when the data suggested otherwise.

What is sad in today's society is the ongoing attempts to silence any opposition to evolution, even in the face of growing problems with the theory brought out by the very proponents of it. Because the discussion of origins is closed to any other possibilities, true scientific inquiry is stifled.

Neither evolution nor creationism can be proven, because the origin of life is an event in the past. It is not a repeatable experiment that is falsifiable. We cannot go back in time and recreate the scenario. We can look at the evidence available to us today, and we can consult the one who was there--God.

I also believe that there will always be a debate with an young earth vs. old earth view. Scientists clearly find a way to prove their point by even sometimes creating evidence that is not even there. It behooves me how anyone can deny that God created all living things on earth. If we really think about it, He created scientists and blessed them with the wisdom that they have to figure out what He has already done. And yet there are still many questions that has not been answered. As the bible says, Only God knows all things and only He is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. I pray that for all who deny's God the Glory.

In reply to Stephen Moshier's comment in the article on the "problem this young-earth creationism makes for the Christian witness." Christians do not add to salvation by saying that people must believe the Bible for what it says.
I know that there is debate over whether the Bible teaches young earth or old earth. But if Genesis really does teach a young earth then we as Christians should not shrink back from defending that position. We know that God is omniscient and that he cannot lie. What He says about the origins of the universe WILL accord with the evidence of science. I don't advocate throwing away all our scientific data. I simply hold to the only objective truth we have: The Bible. The great thing is that we can do science with passion, knowing that that science done right will only serve to authenticate God's word.

Sorry I haven't responded before now. Racism is a caste system that privileges European ancestry (Usually Northern Europe), Y chromosomes, class and/or Protestant religion, often Calvinist.

there can also be racist like things as well. Like I see the "Left Behind" books. If you think of conservative Christians as the "supernatural, born again race" as I think Kenneth Copeland put it...you have a really disgusting ethnic cleansing fantasy.

However, the edges of definition are blurry, because the concept of race is a blurry edged social construct. The Irish use to not be "white," but now they are. There is also a tendency to make exceptions for people we know...making them "honorary" whites, so to speak.

I see that Mike "I've hired gays" Huckabee is all for some gay people as "honorary" straights, as long as they are useful to him.

Why not be obsessed about race in America? Looking at just the raw statistics...we're a racist country and have far to go, even if we have traveled some distance already.

I'm not saying that people with European ancestry are bad, inherently cursed with the guilt of racism; I'm saying that the social construct of whiteness is a bad legacy and that we should get rid of that. Not the same thing at all. Just because one's ancestors came from Europe, like mine did; that doesn't mean that you have to identify as "white," a label of the oppressor caste. This is America, you can reinvent yourself without a caste/racial label. Try it, it's fun.

Take the best, reject the rest.

However, in a country that's been dominated by whiteness so long, it's hard to tell if progress is being made without statistics. This means that old labels have to be used to keep track of what's really happening, which means that the mere act of trying to quantify progress against racism may keep alive racist labels that should have faded away, like "white."

So, for some things, I guess the lesser evil is marking the "white" box. Just try not to do it all the time, and put mental quotes around it. An advertising company doesn't have to have a "white" box on their polls and customer surveys. Other categories can aid them in marketing to you without resorting to a caste label.

"White" is a caste label imposed by the caste system of white privilege/hegemony. "Black" isn't a caste label...certainly not the opposite of "white." "Black" is the self-chosen consensus name of a community. Black is a rejection of a caste label.

Same sort of thing goes with the "Gay" community. It's not the same thing as the "homosexual" community. It's downright rude to call people by names they have rejected, especially when that label is an old scientific label that's rather obsolete to boot. When you do that, you're guilty of racist-like thinking, right? It's not racist as strictly defined, but it just acts like racism.

“what a problem this young-earth creationism makes for the Christian witness.” This line confuses me as I am forced to question the author and ask “what are we to witness for” then. Are we then to witness for a God whose Word we can not trust? And if we chose to defend the Word, we could potentially be considered as causing problems? How are we not to trust the Genesis account and believe Christ’s existance? I have a problem picking and choosing what to believe and not believe. Was the word not inspired in Genesis? How can we have this discussion and not add young earth as a fourth part of the trinity, yet not keep losing footing on a field in which science has been successful at making men no longer connected intimately to a creator, but merely an ephemeral specie. Finally, How are we to present our opinions in a way that we respect and show Christ love?

I think the fact that we see a lack of hard, factual evidence for the evolutionary process and errors within dating methods, shows us that the evolutionary process is in no way 100 percent certain. Without such knowledge it is foolish to teach just one theory of how the earth began in state run schools.

A problem is that pastors, by and large, intentionally remain ignorant of the plethora of evidences which indicate Genesis veracity, the plain reading of Genesis, not what mainstream scientits who are Christians wish Genesis would say.

Any 12 year old who reads Genesis will say that it says that the earth and universe are only thousands of years old (about 6,000), so Christians who deny this are just trying to comply with mainstream science, as not to be "some young earth creationist nut." It's as simple as that. Did Jesus believe that Noah's Flood destroyed all humans but the eight on Noah's Ark? When did Noah live, and what nations came from his grandchildren? Does the term species have any meaning, or is the concept of syngameons acutally germane? Was Abraham ten generations after Noah? What caused the Ice Age? (Only the Global Flood Model of young earth creationists can explain it.)

So pastors have dropped the ball, to go along to get along with mainstream science and the wealthy church memmbers who support mainstream science. See http://www.DancingFromGenesis.com for the rationales, look to the particular topics under Categories, and please ask your pastors to get with the program.

Many unbelievers are so because they think Genesis is mythology, and trying to shoehorn the mainstream timeline into Genesis, which plainly teaches a young earth (ask any 12 year old) obviously is a copout, so the unbelievers just sit there and marvel out how the Christians bastardize the first book of the Bible to try to conform with mainstream scientific dogma. They see it as intellectual dishonesy, and that is supposed to attract people to Christianity?

In response to the comment above me, I can't understand how you could equate Christianity with racism. On the one hand I see your point that Christians believe they are the only ones going to heaven, but Jewish people believe they're God's chosen race. Alot of religions hold to the fact that they are specifically the only right one. Why aren't they called racist? Christians who are living their life to glorify God wouldn't be putting anyone down or considering themselves better than anyone else. Christ was criticized in his time for hanging out with the social outcasts. How could a group founded on someone like that be racist? I understand that there are some fervent and sharp tongued Christians out there, but they aren't the whole group. I do believe that only Christians will go to heaven but that doesn't mean that I'm better than anyone else. If anything Christianity makes me see my sinfulness and how imperfect I am.

To you old earth advocates out there; if God meant to relate that the earth and universe are billions of years old, and that new kinds of animals have been appearing through hundreds of millions of years, and that man appeared hundreds of millions of years after the appearance of the first creatures, then why did God use the choice of words which He did in the book of Genesis?

Who can rightfully deny that Noah's Flood was one of kind, according to the Genesis account, a global encompassing catastrophe, and so, can anyone seriously say that God's description of Noah's Flood "was actually just describing a big flood of the Euphrates River?" Is that what the scriptures really say? Ask a twelve year old, he or she would tell you.

You don't have to believe that it's a young earth and universe to be saved, but it is what the Bible clearly teaches, so this must be addressed to unbelievers.

Some posts have appealed to the historic position of the church. Church traditions are valuable, though fallible, guides, with the Bible being the ultimate authority. However, on topics outside the Bible's focus, the church is no more or less authoritative than other sources. In particular, the historical position of the church for most of the past 2000 years has been that the sun goes around the earth and that all humans reside in Europe, Asia, or Africa. Both of these were compatible with what was known at the time and seemed to match up well with various Biblical passages, but are now known to be incorrect.
What has been the historical position of the church regarding the age of the earth and the interpretation of Genesis 1-2? Within the Bible, we have the seven days of Gen. 1-2:3 and Ex. 20:11, 31:17 (but not Deut.5), the one day of Ge. 2:4, genealogies that give some indication of time passing, and various references to creation that do not concern themselves with the time or sequence (including all NT references). Silly liberal interpreters would have us believe that some editor threw together a seven day creation story and a one day creation story in Genesis 1-2, hoping everyone would be happy and no one would notice the contradiction. The fact that no one thought it was a contradiciton until silly liberal intepreters came along suggests that Moses and his audience saw them as perfectly compatible, and at least one if not both parts of Genesis 1 and 2 are not concerned with the exact time and sequence. The grammatical features of Genesis 1 do not legitimately prove a 24 hour day. The exact use of "evening" and "morning" is unique to this passage and thus proves nothing. Hosea 6:2 used "the third day" to mean "soon". More importantly, rules of grammar are not what tells if a particular statement is figurative or literal. Context and comparison with known physical reality are what tell us if a passage is literal. Making up grammatical rules to "prove" a young earth interpretation is like claiming that Paul didn't write all his letters because he had to use the exact same words every time he wrote anything.
On the 7 day framework of the sabbath commandments, there is also the ritual prominence of the 7th month, the sabbath year, and the seven sevens of years (literally a "day" of 49 years in the Hebrew) between jubilees, as well as the exposition in Hebrews of the sabbath rest of Gen. 2:1-3 as an ongoing event to suggest that the weekly analogy of seven days should not be pressed too closely. The genealogies are incomplete when we have evidence (e.g., Luke's extra name between Noah and Abraham, Matthew skipping some kings, discrepant numbers of generations for contemporaries), showing that they provide minimal times but not full data, and there are some problems in interpreting the numbers (different numbers in Hebrew, Greek, and Samaritan; statistical peculiarities that suggest there maybe some confusion in transmission, etc.).

In the early church, there is no clear evidence in favor of an old earth, but there are several non-24 hour day views. Origen interpreted the days figuratively, but he took almost everything figuratively. The authors of II Esdras take a calendar day approach, but they were forging weird apocalyptic pseudoprophecy (Luther found it so confusing that he threw his copy in the river). Other, more credible, sources in the early church took either a more 24 hour approach or less so; the latter tended to favor instantaneous creation (though perhaps some time then spent in shaping it) based on theological considerations about God's power. On the time since creation, a chilastic view (in which "a day is like a thousand years" was taken to mean that the earth should last 6000 years in correspondance to Gen. 1) was popular. This places creation at ca. 5000 or 4000 BC and the second coming at ca. 1000 or 2000 AD. As the second coming has not yet happened, this position is not viable.

Beginning in the mid-1600's, people began to study geology and realized that the physical evidence clearly pointed to a great age for the earth. Many of these early geologists were ordained pastors who viewed these findings as perfectly compatible with Scripture, though there were some who reacted against these findings, often resorting to appallingly bad geology (by the standards of that day). A gap-type old earth view became very popular. Thus, we have The Fundamentals rejecting a young earth position, though the seventh-day adventists advocated a young earth position and some popular-level publications also took a young earth position. Darwin's scientific model of evolution (which had been proposed previously in a Christian context, but it didn't catch on) was promptly seized upon by Huxley as a means for promoting agnostic or atheistic views, though also many evangelicals accepted evolution. Creation science, drawing heavily on Adventist scientific errors, was popularized by Whitcomb and Morris in the 1960’s and has been growing since.

Similarly, death of animals before the Fall has been widely accepted at least as a credible possibility by many throughout church history. Considerations include the fact that the Bible is concerned primarily with spiritual rather than physical death (Adam and Eve did not keel over upon eating the fruit; those in Christ fall asleep rather than truly dying while those not in Him are already dead even if they are still breathing, etc.), the low probability that the elephant would never have stepped on a bug without the Fall, the need for Adam and Eve to have some concept of “you shall surely die”, the fact that the pre-Fall command to subdue the earth implied that there were challenges to face even then, and the thought that, even without a Fall, there should be some way to transition between an earthly and a heavenly existence. Suggested reasons as to why animal death would take place before the Fall include questioning whether animal death is truly a moral evil in and of itself; the possibility that Satan tried messing with them before going after us, and the possibility that the fall of humans was already reflected in the physical world before it actually happened (just as what Jesus did can save those who looked forward to His coming in the OT.)

Polonium halos as a cautionary example

There are at least two versions of polonium halo claims currently being promoted by young earth advocates. Originally, Gentry claimed that they proved that large masses of granite were formed instantaneously as part of the process of creation. The RATE project (a heavily marketed current creation science project to challenge radiometric dating) rejects that, claiming instead that those granite masses were formed rapidly during the Flood, thus displaying a little more grasp on geology. Granite often has bits of other rock in it or cooked rock around it, showing that it formed after other rocks, contrary to Gentry's model.

However, in addition to a number of more technical flaws too detailed to go into here, the polonium halo argument actually would prove an old earth. Polonium halos are holes in crystals that form by the radiometric decay of atoms. The laws of radiometric decay determine how much energy is produced by a particular isotope and thus the size of the hole. This is what lets you tell a polonium 210 halo from a uranium 235 halo, for example-they won't be the exact same size. Thus, polonium halos cannot be identified as such unless the laws of radiometric decay have not changed since the crystal formed. Also, it must be possible to examine a rock and determine whether the halos actually represent something from the formation of the rock, or if later events such as chemical reactions, heating, etc. may have altered the rock. If the laws of radiometric decay have not changed, and if one can distinguish between later alteration and original features, then radiometric dating is valid and the rocks are very old.

It saddens me to see a Christian magazine that is supposed to represent the views of the larger Christian community to the world dismissing a position held by a large portion of the evangelical community. It seems to me as if this article shows how this many Christians seem to sell the authority of the Bible out for another view which rejects the validity of the Creation account and diminishes the power of a great God.
However, to address the article itself, the author seems to give very little evidence for the claims that creatonism is not science. He seems to divorce the realms of theology, philosophy, and science into neat little spheres, giving no evidence contrary too the fact that they may overlap. The article does not provide back up to its declarations that young age creationism is invalid, and instead seems to be a mere bashing of those proponents of the young age view.

I think it's a sad reality that those believing in a literal reading of Genesis 1:1 (young earth creationism) have so much baggage to deal with. It's true that in the past, those that have taken the creationist side have been sloppy in their research and may very well have deserved the label of 'unscientific'. The problem, though, is that, now, when they are trying to do things right, they are not being accepted by the rest of the scientific world. This makes me wonder whether the scientific community is really understanding the data or if they are just writing it off as unacademic because there is a connection to Christianity. Nowadays, though, there is enough evidence and ironically, it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism. Creationists, Christian or not, though, should still be very careful to do accurate studies, not just to prove their personal religious beliefs, but to contribute to the progression of science.

I believe in the Creation Theory. It has been proven over and over again that the creation theory is fact. Furthermore nothing as intelligent and specific, like earth could have just evolved from a big bang. The reproductive system of all living things has a specific pattern and result. No random system could be so specific and accurate. The facts outweigh man's opinions everyday.

Much of the discussion thus far has been with a "science-first" mentality. The question is: Should the Bible conform to science or science conform to the Bible? Science has changed drastically since recorded history. Do we still believe that the earth is the center of our galaxy? Or is the world flat? Science is an ever-changing theory, and it does not seem like it should be the most reliable source of all of your information.

I am not a scholar nor would I ever claim to be, and I truly respect those in higher fields of learning who are actively involved in science. But I know what the Bible says, and this is what I choose to cling to because the Word of God remains the same as the Truth with a capital "T." Jesus asked for men to come to him with child-like faith, and He scoffed at the Pharisees who thought they knew everything.

When the apostle Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by God, then I would have to question the reasoning behind believing only parts of the Bible but not the whole. Is God the Truth Who does not make errors? If He is to be trusted, then the entire Bible must be true not just the parts science lines up with at the time.

Old Testament scholars were criticized about the group called the Hittites for years, but then in the 1920s this people group was proved to have existed. In the same way, I choose to hold to the inerrany of Scripture and believe that God created the world in six literal days because I believe that God does not lie. Some day, science might catch up with the Bible, but if not in my lifetime, I am content to trust in God's Word.

I was a twelve year old once...and I didn't believe that the Earth was a mere few thousand years old. It's also not what was taught in my Methodist Sunday School.

Generally, I was taught the day=age theory, if memory serves, but I think that was wrong and unsatisfactory. Genesis only roughly correlates with the timeline put together by normative science.

That it does that at all suggests keen observations and reasoning, perhaps, on the part of the monotheistic ancients, Genesis show a wonderful intelligence at work, but not scientific observation and scientific reasoning. I don't know why one would expect that. Well, actually, I have my own speculations.

As I have written earlier, I was later taught, I think starting with an article in Christian Century, that there are seven days in Genesis because there was a common belief in the Middle East at that time, that there were seven planetary gods. The names of the days of the week still bear pagan god names, after all, to support that, just for starters. Genesis efficiently and elegantly gives good reason not to worship the seven planetary gods, or to practice any other sort of idolatry.

Genesis is both an affirmation of creation by God, in some Godly way for some Godly reason, for a purpose we may never know, and probably can't; and a caution not to worship anything except the One God, The One God of three persons, if one is Christian. That's just for starters. It's a wonderful book. If I have to choose a favorite book of the Bible, just as literature, Genesis would probably be it.

Evolution and YEC have little to do with Genesis, I think, except as red herrings to divert one's attention from our unlikely existence, evolution or no, our world and natural universe as it is, and the idolatry of our own age.

Genesis does affirm what normative science suggests, that the universe is not divinely supernatural in part or whole, but necessary for our earthly survival. And very interesting.

Evolution is great fun, YEC greatly limits the scope of the fun, by mere billions of years, but isn't without it's moments. Trying to figure out how all the animals were stuffed into Noah's arc is great fun, and might spark interest in naval engineering, if nothing else. But it has nothing to do with evolution, except cultural evolution, and one might miss the forest of meaning for the Gopher Wood trees.

In any case, appealing to the common sense of twelve year olds isn't exactly making your case. As Daniel Boorstin once wrote, I think: "Science is the triumph of reason over common sense." A lot of what I thought was common sense when I was twelve proved to be all too common misconceptions, and not necessarily good sense at all. Hey, live and learn.

Reason has a long history and affirmation in Christian theology, including cautions about limitations, of course. How does reason fit into young Earth Creationism?

Quote: Any 12 year old who reads Genesis will say that it says that the earth and universe are only thousands of years old (about 6,000), so Christians who deny this are just trying to comply with mainstream science, as not to be "some young earth creationist nut."

I agree. It's obvious Genesis makes these claims. Also, any 12 year old who has taken a science class knows the idea the universe is a few thousand years old is total insanity. The solution is obvious, throw the Bible in the garbage. What good is book that claims to be the truth when it is so obviously full of lies?

Dan Robinson said "I think the fact that we see a lack of hard, factual evidence for the evolutionary process and errors within dating methods, shows us that the evolutionary process is in no way 100 percent certain. Without such knowledge it is foolish to teach just one theory of how the earth began in state run schools."

Teaching the alternatives would be teaching religion. Religion does not belong in a public school, and especially not in a science class.

Your claim about a lack of hard factual evidence is not correct. There are no competent scientists who doubt a billions of years old earth and there are no competent scientists who doubt evolution. The evidence is powerful and overwhelming. Look it up or ask any scientist if you don't believe me. A big problem in America is there's a lot of misinformation being spread about scientific discoveries, and non-scientists who are not paying attention are letting themselves be lied to.

"...the fact that we see a lack of hard, factual evidence for the evolutionary process and errors within dating methods, shows us that the evolutionary process is in no way 100 percent certain. Without such knowledge it is foolish to teach just one theory of how the earth began in state run schools."

The accumulated evidence collected for more than 200 years, and the multiplicity of dating methods, suggest that while no one piece can be "100% certain," science doesn't deal in that level of precision anyway, the probability of ancient origins is about as close to certain as science gets.

Claims to contrary are simply not extraordinary enough and cumulative enough, to warrant a paradigm shift that would suggest that children be taught an "alternative" theory. There simply is no alternative theory outside evolution theory and there doesn't have to be any. YEC, as a science, is more interesting in a sociological/political context than in a biological/geological context.

Why do people want so desperately to believe in YEC? That's the question I would like to know...within reasonable probabilities. There is no one answer to that, but generalities and trends will do.

Whatever you believe you do so by faith and you shouldn't mix faiths. How can someone believe the second verse of Genesis through the end of Revelation skipping the 1st chapter of the entire Book? Make up your mind people! I strongly agree with Christopher's post, and want to see all this proof of evolution, I can't see any...oh wait; there is very little physical proof! Your little "tree" is missing some important branches, left with a whole lot of dotted lines (i never realized that I could cut a section out of a tree branch and the top part still remains in the air without support.) You atheists/evolutionists can't understand why the modern animal is found in the same rock strata as the million year old ancestor. Also Christopher's point about reservoirs of fossil fuel under ground is right, if there wasn't a flood to bury all the animals so quickly then where did all the fossils and fuel come from? A fossil is produced by rabid burring of a living creature. If it was a local flood then why was/is there so much oil all around the earth? The massive amounts of oil prove it is not natural death because the animal's remains would have been devoured by the predator/scavenger and never made it underground, and to add to that the massive amounts of fossils underground at any given area is simply not explainable through evolution. Ok and for sake of argument an animal does make it to a rapid burial, how much oil do you think one animal or two can produce?
To be continued…

And another thing…
If chimps are so much more intelligent than us (BobC's comment) then why didn't they invent carpentry to build houses to protect them from the elements? Why weren't they the ones that invented boats, cars, TV’s, and the internet? Let's not even get into the medical field! If they are so intelligent then why don't they go to monkey school and write? They are apparently much more intelligent than we are and they have opposable thumbs to do so! And if this intelligence test was true then wouldn't this prove to be a downgrade in evolution? Assuming evolution actually occurs, when a mother animal (A) gives birth to this new form (B) who does the new form mate with to continue the new form’s kind? Also can only this particular mother create from B or can any of population A create a form B? Also if all of form A can produce form B then wouldn’t this all probably happen relatively close to one another (due to atmospheric changes, etc)? What happens to from A since only the strongest survive? A cheetah is much stronger than I, why am I here (heck even my lab is stronger than me). Since apparently we came from monkeys why do they still exist? When we go to the zoo why don’t we see one having a human baby or a transitional from baby? Where are all the transitional forms physically at, without reconstructing or just using dotted lines on a chart? Looking at evolution I am only more convinced that God made the universe with a purpose, without evolution!!

I find this discussion to be a bit absurd. I beg to ask the question as to how the information gathered by creation scientists is damaging to the Christian witness?
The difference in the way a secularist and a creationist views the evidence is just in the way they look at it, "through different lenses" if you will. We all come at the data with certain presuppositions in mind. A secular scientist does not come to the evidence in awe and wonder of the creation, just as a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) comes to it to just view material that accidentally happened.
I find it easier to witness to people as a Christian when I am willing to stand firmly on the Word of God from the very first verse (Gen 1:1). If the information God gives us in Genesis is not able to be trusted, then how can we trust anything else He says, including about redemption?
I urge you to check out the web site http://www.answersingenesis.org it is an amazing resource.

I really do not like articles like these. What I don't like the most is everyone is trying to prove the other wrong and tell how distorted each others points of view are. Well all points of view are wrong if it does not line up with the Word of God. Gods word is Gods word and that all that is needed. Either you believe it or you don't. Just remember this that Matt states that in the day when the Lord comes He will separate the wheat from the tare. So it is what it is, until then

There are so many issues that it seems impossible to adequately address even a few of them here. So let me just say that those who claim to be Biblical literalists with regard to this matter aren't really. I've yet to meet someone who takes the dome literally. When it is clear that science has shown the assumptions people had in the past about the movement of celestial bodies or other such matters were incorrect, and that those assumptions were held by Biblical authors, we get over it. The only reason the issue of evolution has dragged on is that there are people publishing books suggesting the evidence is less clear cut than it is.

As for how to interpret the creation stories when one finally accepts that the vast majority of scientists really are correct about evolution, let me direct those interested to a post on my blog on this topic.

I think it is interesting to see Wheaton, which is considered the harvard of Christian college, department head concerned with the young earth perspective. I think as Christians we have to take the Word of God as what we view science through, not neccessarily a hindrance to our Christian Witness. I do believe though the hindrance counld be the ignorance of not knowing what Scripture says. Hope you all have a great day

What I am seeing in this blog is many people, looking at the small amount of historical evidence that we do have and interpreting it in many different ways. Once they have their interpretation it then turns to an attack of the other view. I hold a YEC view because the Bible teaches this and evidence can be interpreted to sustain this view. One thing I have learned as a Christian is that brow-beating someone with Christianity does not make them a believer. This is totally a spiritual issue. However, until one can look at creation from a Christian perspective, no amount of arguing is going to change an evolutionists mind. It is all in the hands of God. I feel there is not enough evidence to support either view without a bit of faith guiding us in our opinion. As Christians, we have faith that the Bible is the true inerrant word of God, evolutionists have faith in their interpretations. Without faith, neither side would have a foot to stand on. The “science” can go either way.

BobC at December 4, 2007 said… “Maybe you could explain to the millions of Christian creationists (and to me) how you can accept both science and Christianity.

D. Cochran replies… Bob, that’s easy. Strictly speaking, science is merely the study of the natural universe (God’s natural revelation and one of the two mediums through which He seeks to reveal Himself to us. The second medium is His special revelation, the Bible.). For Christians, there should be no logical reason why the two types of revelation would conflict. Evolution is simply a way of ‘interpreting’ science that has gained dominance in the scientific community, because Christians have largely, sadly and through pride abandoned science to atheists, humanists, etc.

BobC at December 4, 2007 said… “Maybe you could explain to the millions of Christian creationists (and to me) how you can accept both science and Christianity.

D. Cochran replies… Bob, that’s easy. Strictly speaking, science is merely the study of the natural universe (God’s natural revelation and one of the two mediums through which He seeks to reveal Himself to us. The second medium is His special revelation, the Bible.). For Christians, there should be no logical reason why the two types of revelation would conflict. Evolution is simply a way of ‘interpreting’ science that has gained dominance in the scientific community, because Christians have largely, sadly and through pride abandoned science to atheists, humanists, etc.

James McGrath at December 12, 2007 said… “The only reason the issue of evolution has dragged on is that there are people publishing books suggesting the evidence is less clear cut than it is.”

D. Cochran replies… One of the reasons the theory of evolution is dragging on is because its proponents are themselves falsifying what was formerly thought to be supporting evidence ranging from things like general relativity and junk DNA (which isn’t).

ladieT at December 12, 2007 said… “… all points of view are wrong if it does not line up with the Word of God.”

D. Cochran replies… The universe and the Bible are both completely God’s creation for purposes of revelation to humans. Even atheistic evolutionists often finally see God through their formerly clouded eyes, as they honestly do science. Praise God. That’s why it’s sometimes worth getting involved in “articles like these.”

John B. at December 12, 2007 said.. “I beg to ask the question as to how the information gathered by creation scientists is damaging to the Christian witness?”

D. Cochran replies… One simple response is that young-Earth Creationists deny or contradict natural reality because of their ‘a priori views’, which is the same as denying God’s revelation through natural reality. A second is that they raise their interpretation of scripture above all others (pride) and claim exclusive truth vs. orthodox and traditional Biblical scholarship. All of which provides a perverted witness.

Hello James McGrath,

So when do you think Noah's Flood occured, and what do you think was it's extent? Was Noah's Ark as it is described in Genesis, and if so, about how many animals do you think were carried on the Ark?

Why did God say "morning and evening" for each creation day?

Did Jesus acknowledge the Flood of Noah as described in His book?

Why did all the ancient cultures have a legand of a global encompassing flood?

Just say that Genesis is mythology, or say that it says what it means, there really is no middle ground, without disingenous "interpretation."

While the controversy between young earth creation and old earth evolution is not new to me, study of the topic is relatively new to me. I have to say that Ken Ham's (Answers in Genesis) video lecture pointed out to me (a very committed Christian) that the schism between a worldly scientific view and Christian spiritual view will inevitably cause an internal struggle in an individual that, depending on individual life circumstances, will frequently be resolved by a loss of faith. I think this is an individual crisis that can be expanded into a societal generalization that we regularly see worked out in our world and its loss of moral standards.

Hello D. Cochran, you say that young earth creationists are against orthodox and traditional Biblical scholarship, so then, please tell us, are the orthodox Jews, who say that the earth and universe are about 5,800 years old, "prideful and against traditional Bible scholarship?" Please read article #13 at GenesisVeracity.com to see that all but the six days of creation in the Genesis account was recorded by human eyewitnesses.

And please explain to us why your interpretation of Genesis scripture is not prideful, while the young earth creationist "interpretation" is prideful? The young earth creationist position is based upon what Genesis says, but your interpretation is not, so how can your interpretation, a plain butchering of what Genesis says, be a true and unprideful rendering? Are you not adjusting what the Bible says to fit your "a priori views?"

James I. Nienhuis at December 17, 2007 said… “Hello D. Cochran, you say that young earth creationists are against orthodox and traditional Biblical scholarship, so then, please tell us, are the orthodox Jews, who say that the earth and universe are about 5,800 years old, "prideful and against traditional Bible scholarship?"

D. Cochran replies… As far as it is possible to know anything about science or the Bible, anyone who says the Earth is 5,800 years old is wrong. Either out of misinterpretation, which could always be influenced by pride, or because they simply take the word of someone else’s misinterpretation.

James I. Nienhuis at December 17, 2007 said… “Please read article #13 at GenesisVeracity.com”

D. Cochran replies… I will.

James I. Nienhuis at December 17, 2007 said… “And please explain to us why your interpretation of Genesis scripture is not prideful,”

D. Cochran replies… I personally can be just as prideful as you or anyone else. However, God cannot be. Any interpretation of scripture or natural science that results in an obvious contradiction between the two is clearly wrong, since God would never contradict Himself, as the author of both. God’s revelation to all of us, whether through the natural or spiritual world, would always be as consistent as it is possible to discern. The young-Earth view is full of obvious contradictions toward established science and even scripture, which causes many believers and non-believers to feel like they have to choose between science and the Bible, and thereby be denied a clear witness of our Savior. One of the best scholarly discussions of this dilemma is “The Genesis Debate” (Forward by Norman Geisler), which provides the 24-hour view (AiG, young-Earthism), the day-age view (Old-Earth, progressive creationism), the framework view, and a historical record of Biblical orthodoxy.

James I. Nienhuis at December 17, 2007 said... "please explain to us why your interpretation of Genesis scripture is not prideful."

D. Cochran replies... Hugh Ross is one of the most humble Godly people you could ever meet. Hugh is an eminent Ph.D. astronomer and was an evangelical pastor for over 20 years. He is the founder and President of 'Reasons To Believe' (www.reaons.org), a science/faith think tank that sees God positively affirmed through the inerrant revealed Word AND the revelations and reality of mainline science (not evolution, naturalism, atheism, etc.). He has been invited to many debates concerning the unfortunate young/old Earth conflict to represent old-Earth/progressive creationism. Routinely, Dr. Ross is vehemently publicly ridiculed and personally demeaned by young-Earthers - even worse than he is by atheistic evolutionists. The behavior of young-Earthers toward Hugh is an abomination to our faith, to Christ and to His witness to a lost world. Only pride would cause one Christian to treat another in such a consistently undisciplined and un-Christian way.

Our public behavior concerning science or anything else should simply display the pleasure God takes in our mere existence (physical and spiritual). I seldom see humble pleasure in the words of young-Earthers (Pride!).

Christians are hungering for ways to offer an unsaved and hostile world a good understandable information that affirms God's special revelation (the Bible) and is also plainly consistent with His natural/general revelation (science, un-interpreted by naturalists). ‘Reasons To Believe’ shows how a non-naturalistic view of mainline science reveals the order and design of the created cosmos to be a fantastic invitation to know its Creator, Christ.

It's difficult to have an exchange when my posts don't appear here for a day or two, what's up with that? Do you others have this same situtation? Does anyone know why it takes so long for posts to appear?

The Bible says morning and evening of the creation days, so does that really sound like billions of years? If it does, you'll have to explain to the kids how God got it so wrong.

I'll be on Sid Roth's radio show, Messianic Vision, across the country, all Chirstmas week, so I hope you tune in, you too Rob Moll. Check Sid's website for the time in your area.

To D. Cochran: The only contradiction I see is what you say Genesis says versus what the words actually say.

How can a creation day with a morning and an evening "really mean" hundreds of millions of years?

When you read the account of Noah's Flood, and the geneologies before and after the Flood, does it "really mean" just a flood of a river, like the Tigris and/or the Euphrates?

The debate between a young earth and an old earth position basically boils down to the authority of Scripture vs. the authority of fallible people. If we elevate science above the Bible, as most old-earth advocates must do (while they might vehemently deny this), the creation days of Genesis have to be re-interpreted to fit with the idea that life began millions of years ago. However, if we believe that God actually means what He says in Genesis, then a day (yom) used with evening, morning and a number obviously means exactly what we would expect it to mean, viz. a 24-hour period of time. Otherwise, some Scripture passages such as Exodus 20:11, “in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them” become incomprehensible.
The age issue has to do with what God says He did, not with what we think He must have done.

Joel Kontinen at December 26, 2007 said… “If we elevate science above the Bible, as most old-earth advocates must do (while they might vehemently deny this)…”

D. Cochran asks… Joel, Do you think God’s special revelation (the Bible) is less subject to interpretation than His natural revelation (through the study of the universe - science)?

Virtually as we speak, I am watching a lengthy respectful email exchange between two creationists (young and old) who both seem more knowledgeable of science and scripture than anyone else I have seen in this thread. It’s a pleasure and exciting to see a Godly dialog:
- Between two people who recognize the ultra complexities of both scripture and science,
- God’s various ways of revealing himself to his children,
- That exposes two men as brothers in Christ, and
- Fills one with excitement, as we watch sanctification at work, through our natural/physical selves and our spiritual selves.

Can you see how your comments might be taken as superior-sounding know-it-all rhetoric that does not positively contribute to such a dialog? This inflammatory subject of our origins, as seen through science and scripture, needs Christians to stop fighting behind the lines, so we can focus on the battle at the front-lines.

Hey D. Cochran, so what about Exoudus 20:11?

And when do you think the Deluge occurred, what do you think was its extent, and what do you think caused the Ice Age?

How do you explain the hundreds of submerged cyclopeean megalithic ruins found in various parts of the world?

You're dodging questions, such as Joel's about Exodus 20:11, which makes you look quite evasive, not good for the credibility of your argument.

I am a Young Earth Creationist.

I am sick and tired of these young earth creationists labeling
everyone who disagrees with them an atheist and damning them to
Hell. How do they explain the following:

We can see the light from galaxies millions of light years away.
We know their distance because with powerful telescopes we can
see a certain type of variable star (cephids) which show a mathematical relationship between period and luminosity (this was
worked out by ovserving cephids in our own galaxy whose distance
could be measured by parallax, and deriving a formula relating the
two. By observing the periods of cephids in other galaxies we can
derive their absolute magnitude; by measuring their apparent
magnitude and comparing the two, we can derive their distance. It
turns out the Andromeda galaxy is 2,000,000 light years away,
meaning the light took 2,000,000 years to reach Earth--so the
galaxy must be at least 2,000,000 years old. We can use type Ia
supernovae (supernovae--exploding stars--triggered when a white
dwarf star with a mass just under the critical limit for a
supernova accretes enough material to push its mass over the
critical limit and trigger the collapse and subsequent explosion.
We have evidence of the Big Bang from the cosmic microwave background radiation. According to the theory, the radiation
temperature should have dropped to below 3 degrees Kelvin; it is
in fact 2.7 degrees kelvin. We have evidence of the great age of
the Earth from Potassium-Argon (not radiocarbon) dating, and from
the rate of plate tectonics. And, finally, there ARE many transitional forms in the fossil record, such as the cynodont
therapsids (mammal-like reptiles)--which this poster has never heard
of.

Hey D. Cochran, so what about Exoudus 20:11?

And when do you think the Deluge occurred, what do you think was its extent, and what do you think caused the Ice Age?

How do you explain the hundreds of submerged cyclopeean megalithic ruins found in various parts of the world?

You're dodging questions, such as Joel's about Exodus 20:11, which makes you look quite evasive, not good for the credibility of your argument.

I have a dear friend who is now a YEC. We had a couple of healthy discussions at work. He thinks that Evolution is the cause of most of the social ills in the world (ex. Communism). It reminds me of the "things were better when I was young" talks that I would see being given by someone who conveniently suspends the notion of the many hardships and turmoil that has been documented throughout human history. Not even worth the time to debate the state of the world post and pre evolution.

I tried to explain to him that science is not out to prove or disprove God. Science is trying to understand the natural world that exists around us through scientific research and facts. There isn't a conspiracy. Sometimes understanding god's methods and procedures are simply beyond us for example what is a day to god? The Bible says in II Peter 3:8, “…that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” God works in mysterious ways and that could never be proven or disproven but is always highly debatable by theologians everywhere.

The big question is more philosophical. Why can't the bible and science co-exist? Salvation through Jesus Christ is the key concept not evolution. For a lack of a better term, let scientists do science. Allow the doctrine to age gracefully and don’t pit it against science. If you pigeonhole God's word then you limit it effectiveness and can hurt its credibility with non-Christians.

Peace.

No death before the (fictional) fall? Then explain why T-Rex
teeth are embedded in the pelvic bones of a triceratops. Or why
the remains of two dinosaurs (protoceratops and velociraptor) were
found locked together in a death struggle. There is no mention of
these animals in the Bible, contrary to what creationists claim.

I've been interested in the topic of young earth vs old earth creationism as well as evolution for several years now. Has anyone heard of the young earth creationist ministry "Creation, Evolution and Science Ministries"?
website: http://www.creationministries.org/index.aspx

Please tell me what you think.