Creation vs Evolution: The Debate RAGES on. But, maybe there Should be Less Rage.

I'm a Christian and a creationist. I believe that God created the world. And frankly, I think it's immature how some evolutionary thinkers act like creationists are stupid or insane or both. BUT, I'm even more concerned by Christian creationists who are beginning to represent evolutionists as stupid or crazy or both. We Christians are supposed to know better than that. Love neighbors as yourself, right?

I think we've already lost the chance at an honest discussion if we characterize those who believe in evolution as idiots. It's insulting, and, for the most part, it's just not true. Evolution believers run the full spectrum of intelligence just as creationists do. There are some absolutely BRILLIANT people on that side of the argument. Don't kid yourself. These are people who, at the highest levels, if engaged in an informal debate with most of us, would undress our arguments in record time.

And don't laugh off the evidence for evolution. There's TONS of it, much of it at the microbial level which most of us wouldn't even begin to understand. HOWEVER, their intelligence and the metric tons of evidence don't prove evolution is true. All it proves is that if you have a predisposed bias toward a naturalistic explanation of the world, THEN, evolution is the Inference to the Best Explanation. They see the fossil record, the similar DNA, the similar biological features...and they conclude: common ancestor.

Our side, the Creationist side, is the same. Brilliant folks here too. And metric tons of evidence for Creation. And, I believe, it's built so much more on common sense. Our predisposed bias toward a supernatural explanation of the world leads to creation as our Inference to Best Explanation. We see the fossil record, the similar DNA, the similar biological features...and we conclude: common Artist.

The trouble comes when either side fails to grant that the other side might have a shred of intelligence and an inference worth at least considering respectfully in an open dialogue. The secondary trouble comes when either side mistakenly represents its argument as FACT. Both Evolution and Creation are theories...inferences, conclusions drawn from evidence.

In addition, if we're ALL honest, both sides of the argument are really engaged in a belief system. Evolution's religion = naturalism. Creation's religion = Christianity (among some others). None of us were alive when everything began. And none of us lived long enough to confirm or deny what we believe happened over time. In fact, if you go back far enough, both evolutionists and creationists believe in a type of supernatural creator. Evolutionists / naturalists go back to an eternal particle or element, from which everything evolved. Christians go back to an eternal God who created everything.

Rather than shot insults at each other, maybe we should begin with those things that we have in common. My .02. 

The CONTINUING evolution of Evolution...

How convenient it must be to be an evolutionary biologist. Ignore the obvious. Look for an alternative. Invent a theory. Then, no matter how much evidence to the contrary, just retrofit your theory with each new discovery.

Forgive me folks. But the whole evolution/creation controversy just gets my blood boiling. Surfing Yahoo this morning, I found this interesting story, and it just kind of stirred my thoughts a bit. Here's an excerpt from what I read:

"Moreover, we found smectite in only some locations in South China, and not uniformly as one would expect for marine deposits," Bristow said. "Taken together, several lines of evidence indicated to us that these early animals lived in a lake environment."

This discovery raises questions as to how and why animals appeared when they did.

"It is most unexpected that these first fossils do not come from marine sediments," said researcher Martin Kennedy, a geologist at the University of California at Riverside.

"Lakes are typically short-lived features on the Earth's surface, and they are not nearly as consistent environments as oceans are," he explained. "So it's surprising that the first evidence of animals we find is associated with lakes, which are far more variable environments than the ocean. You'd expect the first appearance of animals to be in the most conservative, stable environments we could imagine."

It remains possible, Kennedy noted, that animal fossils of similar or older age exist that remain to be found that are marine in origin. However, at the very least, this work suggests "that animals had already taken on the ability to deal with the environmental fluctuations one sees in lake environments," he said. "That suggests that their evolutionary response is much more rapid that I would have supposed, and that the earliest animals were far more diverse than imagined."

Hmmm…whaddaya know? The earliest animals were far more diverse {read complete} than imagined. Note the key word: imagined. You see that's what evolutionists since Darwin have done…they imagine an explanation, pretend it is fact, and ignore the obvious. Wow, the reptilian back bone is awfully similar to the avian back bone. Huh, must be evolved from one another. Forget the fact that both species still exist at the same time. Look at the human fetus at its earliest stages. Wow, it sure looks like a fish. We must be evolved from marine life.

The Yahoo article just goes to show that science does NOT know it all. Things keep inconveniently being discovered that mess with their theories. Think about some of the evolutionary claims over time. Darwin himself believed that the fossil record MUST have evidence of transitional forms, that is millions of gradual changes between on species to the next. Darwin was bedeviled by the lack of these transitional forms, but hoped that future discoveries would bear out his theory. Well, a century later: {Game Show Wrong Answer Buzzer} Sorry Darwin, thanks for playing. We have some swell consolation prizes for you backstage! The fossil record is void of transitional forms. What we see are fully formed species suddenly "appearing." You'd think that perhaps, that would have done evolution in. Nope, it was just too good of an "out" from the whole "God made us and might have a claim on our lives" idea. So what did evolutionary scientists do? They propose the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Basically, evolution doesn't really happen in a long, drawn out process like they thought. No, instead, it happens in dynamic bursts. WHOOSH! And then it goes cold and slow again. Yeah, that's the ticket.

As I've said in the past, isn't it possible that maybe, just maybe the reason that living organisms share so many common traits is that the same Artist created them? After all, you can look at a series of paintings and tell if they are Monet versus Dali. And how? By the traits they share in common. You do not look at one painting and conclude that the other evolved from it. That would be nonsense.

I remember sitting in an anthropology class at the University of Maryland as an undergrad and hearing the Prof spout on about evolution as a fact. Drawings, animations, a fossil here and there, and the Prof just concluded for all of us: you are descended from apes. You are a genetic accident…having arrived by a miraculous chain of random events. Oops, I said "miraculous." Thing is, I wasn't even a Christian at the time, and I remember thinking, "That's ridiculous! Look at all the frauds from Pilt Down Man to Nebraska Man to Haekel's Drawings! How can I trust this stuff?"

Now I know why we cannot trust this stuff. It's just not true. The most powerful evidence supporting evolution is "Imaginary Evidence." Theory built upon theory, built upon theory.

You are not a galactic accident. A knowing, loving Creator made you. He designed you with great care and has put purpose in your life.

Quote of the Day

Next time you talk to your evolutionist, prochoice friend, consider this:

Why is it that the very same people who believe that ALL life began with chemicals and molecules randomly coming together have such a hard time believing that human life begins at conception?