A Study in Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

the Easter post

2009-04-12T19:41:00.003-04:00

One of the biggest obstacles evolutionists must ultimately deal with is the question..."how did life begin?" Most evolutionists will say that evolution has nothing to do with "the beginning," evolution only deals with the changing over time of what has already begun. While this is technically true, the fact that the universe exists begs the question "what is its cause?" Can life arise out of nothing? Can rocks and gas create a living cell? The truth is, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that it can. We have never witnessed such an event. And even if we could recreate that magic moment when a rock and a mixture of proteins sparked a living cell, the question still remains "where did the rock, proteins, and spark come from?" What evolutionists do not want to admit is that believing in any theory attempting to explain the origin of life is no more than faith in the unseen. Call it an educated guess. Call it science. Call it whatever you wish, but in reality, it is nothing more than believing by faith. It is no different than believing in Santa Clause or the Easter bunny.

Creationists agree with Darwin on natural selection

2009-03-27T12:17:00.002-04:00

Many evolutionists I talk to do not fully understand the creationist point of view when it comes to evolution and the process of natural selection. Creationists do agree with Darwin on the process of natural selection. Natural selection states that organisms with advantageous traits survive and increase in number allowing them to pass on that trait to their offspring. The evolutionist takes it a step further and says that by this process a frog can become another animal. Creationists do not agree with that next assumption. There is no evidence to support that an animal can become another "kind" of animal. A dog can become a bigger dog, or a hairier dog, but it can not become a horse.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509800,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/evolution

This link will take you to an article that discusses this issue. It also talks about the creation museum in Kentucky.

6 Trillion Dollar prize for proof of evolution

2008-11-12T20:35:00.005-05:00

This article is very interesting. It talks about a guy in Turkey that has offered a prize of 10 trillion lira or roughly 6 trillion dollars for a transitional form fossil which proves evolution (change from one species into another) actually occurs. Worth the read.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/creationist-offers-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution-945289.html

List of Scientists Who Disagree With Darwin

2008-09-30T22:33:00.001-04:00

Here is a great list of scientists that disagree with Darwin's theory of evolution.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

The God Particle

2008-09-09T21:48:00.002-04:00

The following link was sent to me by my friend Stephen. Its a very interesting video about the largest scientific experiment to ever be conducted. Scientists in Europe are attempting to force subatomic particle to collide causing conditions not seen since "one billionth of a second after the big bang." They are trying to expose the "God particle." Check it out.

http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/9649886/reutersav/20080908/av_reuters_all/_goodmorningyahoo_reuters20080908t201113z_v_tns_rcon_c117_nvo_atomsmasher

Glossary of Origins Terminology

2008-09-05T22:15:00.002-04:00

This link will take you to a glossary of origins terms. If you are studying and you want to know what the word "anthropocentric" means then this site can help.

http://www.trueorigin.org/glossary.asp

Peace.

Great Book on Darwin's Theological Theory of Evolution

2008-09-02T23:54:00.001-04:00

This book talks about how Darwin's basic theory is a theological theory rather than a physiological one. Very good read.

Sarah Palin Believes in a Creator

2008-09-01T20:53:00.001-04:00

Here is an article on John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin. It details her stance on the teaching of creationism in public school.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/08/30/really-a-creationist

"Nebraska Man" Debate

2008-08-31T11:09:00.002-04:00

In 1922, Henry Osborn discovered a tooth in Nebraska that he said came from early human ancestors. The Illustrated London Times ran an article about the tooth with full illustrations as to how the owner of that tooth may have looked. They called the creature Nebraska Man. Later, it was discovered that the tooth was from a peccary, an extinct pig species. Creationists point to this instance as evidence of the evolutionists tendency to exagerate the truth about their fossils and discoveries. Evolutionists contend that this was an unintentionable mistake and was never taken seriously by the scientific community. Link to an evolutionists opinion of Nebraska Man: http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/02/the_truth_about_nebraska_man.php

My opinion of it all is this. What if the truth had been delayed? What if it had been 100 years before we realized the truth about this fossil? Would the scientific community have built a hypothesis around this fossil and would they have been as loyal to it as they are the theory of evolution? The answer is yes. They would have no choice. Their process requires it because it is the current and most accurate data concerning the matter. And the most current and accurate data is regarded as the truth.

That means we as a society would be building our opinion of our origins on false information. My question then is "What if we find out 100 years from now that all our deductions about the fossil record turn out to be false?" To the evolutionist I ask this "Since science continually proves itself wrong, is it logical that we at least admit the possibility that our deductions about events that happened many years ago, long before we were documenting life on this planet, could be as wrong as Nebraska Man?"

Article posted on Yahoo

2008-08-28T10:40:00.002-04:00

This article talks about a pregnant turtle fossil discovered in Canada. The article claims that the fossil is 75 million years old. But what is interesting about the fossil is that it is of a turtle. Its not a different species that could have evolved into a turtle....it is a turtle. This fits perfectly with the creationist point of view that change over time within a species is possible and does occur, but change from one species into another is impossible.

Link to the article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080827/sc_livescience/fossilofancientpregnantturtlediscovered

The Beginning is Faith

2008-08-27T22:31:00.003-04:00

Now, we know that all reasonable people believe the universe had a beginning either through a creator/designer or through naturalistic evolution. We know that no one saw this event nor can they replicate that beginning in a laboratory (and even if they could it does not conclusively mean that is the way it began). Therefore, we can not verify in a physical, scientific sense that either of these opinions is the way "the beginning" happened. They both require faith.

Although both require faith they do not require blind faith. Both evolution and intelligent design proponents will point to "evidence" in the natural world that supports their belief system. Both sides are equally passionate in their opinions. What I have found is that believers in both ID and atheistic evolution are sometimes unwilling to honestly consider the opposing viewpoint. There are exceptions to this rule of course, but those people are not the talking heads we see on television. The media wants sensationalism and they stack the deck with bloviators in order to get it.

At this point we must evaluate the data to see what our logic and reason would have us to believe about the origin of mankind. And the best advice I can give you in evaluating the data is to remember that there are more than two ways to look at a situation.

Both Intelligent Design and Evolution Require Faith?

2008-08-26T21:55:00.003-04:00

In the last entry I mentioned that both ID and evolution require faith in order for a person to believe in them . Those of you that are new to ID are probably wondering exactly what do I mean. Believers in the theory of evolution would say that there is hard scientific evidence to support their belief system. This is not true. However, lets assume there is evidence for biological evolution. This is the change of one biological organism into another biological organism and ultimately into man. Ok, even if that were true it still does not explain where the biological organism originated. There is no evidence to support a claim that billions of years ago lightning struck the primordial soup and sparked a lifeform into existence. Belief in this requires a person to believe in something they can not see, touch, replicate in a laboratory, or hear an eye witness account of. It requires faith that their hypothesis is correct despite the lack of, or even ability for, verification. The origin of life ultimately falls to the point of "the beginning."

A brief description of Intelligent Design science and Evolutionary science

2008-08-25T22:51:00.006-04:00

We know that this earth and everything on it had a beginning. There are two major viewpoints that try to explain how we came into existence. The first is Intelligent Design (ID). Proponents of ID believe the universe was created by a higher being. Most believe this higher being to be God. ID proponents believe this higher being created the universe, the earth, plants, and animals in much the same form as we see today. This belief is based primarily in faith because we can not test God by applying the Scientific Method. However, many of the discoveries being made by scientists today fit perfectly with the idea of a designer rather than the alternative. This alternative is the theory of evolution (when talking about the origin of the universe we are talking about cosmic evolution, not biological evolution). Proponents of this theory believe the universe began billions of years ago through naturalistic means. In other words, there was no creator or designer, only unguided random processes. These unguided, random processes continued for billions of years developing matter, plants, animals, and ultimately mankind. This belief is also based in faith because we can not know what happened 20 billion years ago, nor can we subject it to the scientific method.

Peace

First Day

2008-08-24T23:23:00.002-04:00

"In the beginning...."

What a fitting first line for this blog! It is the first verse of the Bible. Genesis 1:1. And these three words are where almost everyone can find common ground. We all believe we "began" at some point. Whether it was millions of years ago or 6,000 years ago we all believe there was a beginning. Yes, I know, there are those that believe the universe has always existed, but they are an extreme minority and have no grounds for their theory, scientific or theological.

This blog will document my studies into the different beliefs about our origin. I will warn you now that I will be biased in what I post. I believe in the creation story told in the Bible in Genesis chapter one and I will be primarily posting findings that support that view. However, I will be posting new findings that support the theory of atheistic evolution worldview should I find any. But you should know that I have not found any thus far.

I hope you enjoy reading what I find as much as I enjoy finding it.

Peace