8.12.07

Evolution vs. Creation

A Florida official was "rebuked" by the State for an email in which she opposed evolution. The St. Pete Times article tells the story. What frustrates me is the arrogance of the pro-monkey side mocking Creationists for trying to teach their faith as science (they may use a capital "S" in science). However, evolution takes a great deal more faith than does a creation by a Creator God.

Evolution, at its core, is atheistic. Sure, some try to push a "gap theory" trying to separate Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, but the gap is really found between their ears. They try to fill a gap that is not found in Genesis. Some try to suggest "theistic evolution." They are the faithless, who will take the word of men over God's Word- even when those men are dis-proven time after time. There are multiple examples where missing links or other evidence was found to be other than what was first thought. And the presupposition that the earth is billions of years old is based on very questionable "science." One of my college papers was on the age of the earth. Though I attempted to be balanced, I found too much contradiction from the evolutionary camp itself. Maybe their argument will evolve into something believable without so much faith one day. Of course, then they would probably be Creationists!

The bottom line is this: evolution is for three types of people- the ignorant, atheists and idiots.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Out of curiosity, what methods do you use to determine when science is valid and when it is not? For example, do you reject some science even if it does not conflict with your religious beliefs (such as carbon dating)? If so, on what basis?

The sciences are a broad field, but I'd be interested to understand how you approach what elements to accept or reject.

- James

pregador27 said...

I studied Carbon Dating when I researched the age of the earth for a college paper.

When I study I do not just accept what I am told, if I am interested I dig deeper. Carbon Dating is flawed at best.

The argument for evolution is senseless too. If mutations brought forth new species, does that mean that there were two mutations (minimum) at a time? Or that gradual mutations kept up with each other for procreative putrposes? Do you subscribe to Darwinian evolution or spontaneous evolution?

The question you ask is answered by this: I study if I am interested. I have not spoken out on stem-cell research, for example, because it has not interested me enough to study at this time. We cannot study everything- even if the subject is important.

pregador27 said...

PS- I am not meaning to imply that you believe in evolution from the above, my tone in asking about spontaneous or Darwinian was not meant to be an either/or choice. Reading it does not convey that fact.

Anonymous said...

To answer your question: I'm not sure. I do think that species modify over the course of generations (some very rapidly, as do bacteria). This should be apparent to anyone (have you ever seen how different people looked back in the 1800s??!) But the idea that complex systems can simply mutate from simple compounds has never been fully explained to my satisfaction.

- James

pregador27 said...

The modifications of species is not a species-to-species evolution. Many changes may have more to do with diet and environment than any evolutional device.

For example, in areas when skin is generally more exposed to sun people develop a more tanned appearance. In some areas people tend to be smaller than other places (e.g.- when i was in Brazil I was taller and heavier than most there- but the portions were much smaller and much less processed food in the diet).