Free Republic

The OP depends on conflating the origin of life with evolution. It's never been like that. Even Darwin merely said that God made the first organisms. The book itself is written by Darwinians, BTW. I'm wondering what they think about the froot loops who are now taking it as a rejection of Darwin's theory. Here's what they actually think:

In our book we dwell mostly on the long period of animal evolution from the onset of the Cambrian epoch, over 540 million years ago, to the present, during which altered regulation, due to random mutation, brought core processes together in various combinations and amounts, producing the enormous variety of new anatomical and physiological traits of the diverse animal groups.

They think Darwinian processes produced these regulators.

A “scientist” who thinks his concept should be chisled in stone is called an “IDer.”

Darwin’s great discovery was that it was not unguided. Anyone who thinks evolutionary theory is about random changes does not understand evolution at all.

Kansas reconsidered, and decided science was more suitable than ID.

And the weasel wording was removed from the standards.

Well done, Kansas.

It is at least conceivable that the universe was created by a being who sat down and designed it.

But such a being is far too weak and unintelligent to be the Christian God.

This is perhaps why ID has been most readily accepted by the “Unification Church”, whose founder seems to think he is God.

Bottom line? I got to the part were Doc Wilder-Smith pronounced the origin of life to be part of evolutionary theory.

Just another ignoramus. Most people who think they hate evolution have no idea what it is.

Evolutionists don’t buy into eugenics, because science has shown that intelligence is largely the result of training rather than genes.

And they don’t buy into racism, because science has shown that there are no biological human races. (there is more variation within any “race” you might want to define than there is between any of them)

However, creationism is still ripe for eugenics and racism. As late as the 1990s, creationist master Henry Morris was writing that blacks were spiritually and mentally inferior to other people.

Not that all creationists are racists; many would be horrified to find out the sort of thinking on which YE creationism is based. But it’s one of the big differences between science and creationism.

Wow, an up-to-date summary of the evidence - 1867. Post war, I guess. Civil War.

Let’s take a look at how that stuff wears today:

There are now known fossil intermediates between orangutans and other apes. Sivapithecus, for example.

There are numerous prosimian intermediates in the fossil record showing transitions between Tarsiers and more primitive primates. Eosimias is one such intermediate.

We now have numerous transitionals between elephants and other ungulates, and of course, we now know that the monotremes are transitional between mammals and reptiles.

The rather unfortunate racism exhibited by almost all Europeans of the time was not caused by science. Indeed, evolutionists like Huxley and Darwin pointed out that all humans have a common ancestor and all deserve rights and freedom, while creationists like Fitzroy and Agassiz denied blacks were human and advocated slavery for them. In fact, Darwin’s position on blacks was essentially identical to Lincoln’s.

This was one of the great objections to evolution by creationists at the time.