The Vanishing Case for Evolution

ICR ^ | February 12, 2009 | Henry Morris, Ph.D.*

[BJClinton]

I’m genuinely curious and not flaming you: do you believe the earth and all of it’s life were created in 6 days about six thousand years ago?

[GLDNGUN]

More to the point, evolution and belief in God are entirely compatible. Creationists need to wake up to the fact that they do not have the final say on the attributes and capabilities of God.

So I guess through "divine intervention", God gathered up all of the fossils of those zillions of "missing links" (that Darwin said must exist if his THEORY is correct) so some people would be tricked into believing the Bible. That God is a tricky fellow, isn't He? ;-)

[Blood of Tyrants]

Really? So you are saying that the Bible is a lie?

[RonF]

Evolution posits that there are likely to be transitional organisms as one species evolves from another. It does not hold that there are going to be large numbers of such individuals and large numbers of fossils from them, nor does it hold that those fossils will be preserved and found.

[Jeff Gordon]

No, the God of the Bible thoroughly nuked that claim.

Only for those few people that believe in literal Bible. For the rest of the world that nuke is but a whimper.

[Pox]

“I’m sorry to see you here.”

As I noted on one of these previous threads, yet another significant example of why conservatives and Republicans are slowly losing the cultural battle.

[Jeff Gordon]

If one accepts that the omnipotent God can do anything then one must accept just about any possible creation story. A rational being would also weigh the probabilities as well as the possibilities.

While working through the Bayesian probability tree one should make good use of Occum's razor especially for the P(D | H) terms.

[Doc Savage]

Behe and others make a strong case for intelligent design. As any genetics student can attest to, one finds it difficult to understand how THIS is the end result of random mutation and natural selection.

[Darwin Fish]

What you said.

[wolf78]

Behe and others make a strong case for intelligent design. As any genetics student can attest to, one finds it difficult to understand how THIS is the end result of random mutation and natural selection.

Shakespeare famously said "There's method in this madness!". I.e. even if mutations are completely random, they still require a certain environment and mutagenic pressure, i.e. chemical composition of the planet's crust, climate, background radiation and insolation etc..

Even for someone who accepts evolution, it isn't contradictory at all to suspect a divine origin. Randomness neither proves nor disproves a God. What is important however, is to distinguish between science and metaphysics.

[Jaime2099]

You are correct, evolution is a religion. A false religion.

[GLDNGUN]

While working through the Bayesian probability tree one should make good use of Occum's razor especially for the P(D | H) terms.

And when you are walking in the woods and come upon a fine log cabin, how long does it take you to work through that Bayesian probability tree to surmise that the cabin is obviously the result of intelligent design and not a random collection of fallen trees?

[Jaime2099]

Randomness neither proves nor disproves a God. What is important however, is to distinguish between science and metaphysics.

It may not prove that a god does not exist, but Human Evolution certainly seeks to prove that the literal Genesis is false. That's why atheists can't get enough of it. They love it because it's against what they hate, not because it makes sense, has any proof whatsoever, or is even sound science. It's a theory that opposes the Christian's God; therefor, it is acceptable and must be forced on the masses by government.

[valkyry1]

good article

[wolf78]

They are in no way compatible, but many Christians try to entertain both mutually exclusive possibilities at the at time.

The bible already tells two creation stories that on a manifest level are mutually exclusive ("in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram" vs. "in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum"), but on a philosophical level complement and explain each other.

[calex59]

I’m sorry to see this stuff here. This is a policial site, not a religious one.

Actually this is a conservative forum, all times of articles and vanities are posted and welcomed as far as I have been able to tell. Don't like this post, then don't click on it. That solves the problem doesn't it?

[calex59]

Oops, post 36 times should read types.

[Buck W.]

They are. It is wholly compatible to believe that God caused creation and employed a method that we interpret as evolution to get us here.

[Buck W.]

Thank you. Have a nice day.

[Buck W.]

Correct.