Doubting Darwin

The sky is falling! Many interest groups and journalists raced to tell that to the public when a modest but important bill became law in Tennessee early in April.

 The law instructs teachers and administrators to "create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues." 

What's not to like? The law, similar to one in Louisiana, also protects teachers who help students (I'm quoting from the official legislative summary) "understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. ..." Oh, here's the problem: Evolution is one of the theories that can now be analyzed and critiqued. 

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, and many others have gone ape over the inclusion of evolution. They revere critical thinking and the freedom to explore, but not when it might produce irreverence toward their idol.   Continue at  Marvin Olasky

We Now Know That Lucy Said: “Duh … duh … duh”

The evolutionists are at it again! Over the years, we’ve heard a lot about “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis), which evolutionists believe is a relative of humans as part of the supposed evolutionary history of man. Although much of the study of Lucy’s bones has been dedicated to reconstructing her physical body, complete with exhibits and artists’ renditions that depict a human-like Lucy, a recent article in Discover magazine is taking a different approach—evolutionists are trying to reconstruct Lucy’s vocal cords to show how she would have communicated as the supposed ancestor of humans. 

At the Creation Museum, we recently unveiled a new exhibit on Lucy, which emphasizes that our “starting points” make a difference in how we interpret evidence. In our exhibit, we show that Lucy was simply an ape, probably resembling a small gorilla. We also have on display a cast of all the bones found from her body: only 47 out of 207.  Continue at Ken Ham

Darwinism "Has Pretty Much Reached the End of Its Rope"

An interesting paper was recently published by David Depew and Bruce Weber in the journal Biological Theory. The paper bears the title "The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis." Its abstract summarizes the article's contents:

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

This paper is interesting in at least two respects. First, there is the curious use of the word "Darwinism" to describe the modern evolutionary synthesis. It is frequently asserted by our critics that "Darwinism" is a pejorative term invented by creationists and proponents of ID as a form of derision. The term, however, is used widely in the mainstream scientific literature -- albeit not always in a consistent manner. The authors define "Darwinism" thus:

Darwinism refers to its author's proposed causal explanation of evolution -- natural selection -- and to theories in which this process plays the dominant role in evolution, including human evolution.

The second point of interest is the paper's claim that "Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope." Furthermore, as the authors argue,

...it is largely because Lamarckism, saltationist (sudden) mutationism, and inner-driven orthogenesis, to name the most enduring alternative traditions in evolutionary biology, failed to become mathematized empirical sciences with at least a foothold on value-neutrality that Darwinism still rules the evolutionary roost.   Continue at Darwinism

Darwin's Heretic: Did the Co-Founder of Evolution Embrace Intelligent Design?

One of the most renowned biologists of the nineteenth century, Alfred Russel Wallace shares credit with Charles Darwin for developing the theory of evolution by natural selection. Yet one part of Wallace’s remarkable life and career has been completely ignored: His embrace of intelligent design. “Darwin’s Heretic” is a 21-minute documentary that explores Wallace’s fascinating intellectual journey and how it sheds light on current debates. The documentary features University of Alabama at Birmingham Professor Michael Flannery, author of the acclaimed biography, “Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life.” You can purchase a DVD of this video plus more than 30 minutes of bonus material at http://www.darwinsheretic.com.

My friend, Pastor Jim McClarty wrote this about the following video: “I don’t often post youtube videos… I try to be selective. But I thought this short documentary was well done and it taught me something I didn’t know about the history of Darwinistic Evolution. Even his partner in the development of his theory of natural selection broke rank and insisted that an honest examination of the evidence leads to the conclusion of design and a designer. Interesting stuff.”  HT: John Samson

C. H. Spurgeon on Evolution

At one of the memorable gatherings under "The Question Oak," a student asked Mr. Spurgeon, "Are we justified in receiving Mr. Darwin's or any other theory of evolution?"

The President's answer was:—"My reply to that inquiry can best take the form of another question,—Does Revelation teach us evolution? It never has struck me, and it does not strike now, that the theory of evolution can, by any process of argument, be reconciled with the inspired record of the Creation. You remember how it is distinctly stated, again and again, that the Lord made each creature 'after his kind.' So we read, 'And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.'

"And again, 'And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.'   Keep Reading >>>

Peter Enns on Paul, Adam, and Evolution

For Peter Enns, evolution denies the historical Adam and Eve, and that gives rise to the questions he’s trying to answer. The fact that Paul viewed Adam as the first human being has, for Enns, been shown to be wrong scientifically. Enns asserts that Paul is theologically right on the point that Jesus defeated sin and death, but that he “may be wrong” on what caused the problem–Adam’s sin. Though he “may be wrong” on that, Enns asserts, Paul is right about sin and death and the solution. Enns says that even if Adam and Eve didn’t bit an apple, sin and death are real.

Enns seems to want to keep the theology while discarding the history as he explains: “I don’t need a historical Adam to make all that happen… I understand why Paul says what he says, cause he’s an ancient man, cause he’s a Jew.”

For Enns, the theory of evolution carries as much authority as Scripture, and it shows that Paul was wrong about Adam being the first human. Moreover, the interpretations that Paul and the other biblical authors provide of earlier Scripture are just possibilities, not necessarily correct readings that function as controls on how those earlier texts should be read.

Peter Enns is trying to combine two different religions, evolution and Christianity...  Read the rest HERE

Evolution Refuted

 

Answers in Genesis 

See Also:
Young Earth

Irreducible Complexity

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 

What “science” once thought of as the “simple cell” is now understood to be far more complex than all the goings on in a large city! ALL the mechanisms would need to be in place and functioning perfectly at the very start, or else the cell would die. This is called “irreducible complexity”, and forever destroys secular atheistic evolution as an intellectually viable option. 

From the article found here: concerning the 5 part mouse trap… “an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all…. the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn’t work.”  Keep Reading...

God and Evolution

Today, the overwhelming majority of American kids receive a Darwinian or neo-Darwinian education. They learn at schools and then colleges that they are just matter, the result of occasional mutations and survival of the fittest. Christians over the decades have debated whether the earth's history should be measured in thousands or billions of years, but—until recently—almost all stuck by the biblical account of God creating every kind of plant and animal in six days (perhaps longer than 24 hours). Almost all believed that God created Adam from dust, and Eve from Adam.

For decades an attempt to make Darwinism acceptable to Christians, "theistic evolution" (TE), lurked in the background but made almost no inroads among Bible believers. A December 1997 article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society—"Theistic Evolution: Deism Revisited"—began by observing that TE "has not proven to be the mediating position once hoped for." Taylor University professor Michael A. Harbin noted that Bible scholars criticized TE for being unbiblical and "more deistic than theistic." Read it all HERE

Honk If You Love Anti-Christian Bumper Stickers

To get to my favorite coffee shop here in Louisville, I pass a lot of bumper stickers intended to make people like me angry. One of them says “Born Okay the First Time.” Another says “If You Don’t Like Abortion, Don’t Have One.” And, of course, there are several of the Darwin fish, those metallic signs with the early Christian symbol sprouting legs.

These bumper stickers have spawned an entire industry in American evangelicalism, countering these arguments, with “right back at you” ridicule. I understand the temptation, because some of those bumper stickers used to rile me up too. I would roll my eyes and think how stupid the argument was in front of me. Why does the Wicca devotee really need to tell us, “My Other Car Is a Broom”? Why does the anti-procreation guy have to announce, “My Labradoodle Is Smarter Than Your Honors Student”? Keep Reading>>>

Science and Religion Aren’t Friends?

Jerry A. Coyne is not one to pull punches. A professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, Coyne is an ardent defender of evolution and an equally ardent opponent of any “friendship” between science and religion. In today’s edition of USA Today, Coyne once again makes that point most emphatically. In ‘Science and Religion Aren’t Friends,” Coyne argues that the worldviews of science and religion are irreconcilable. While he frames his argument in terms of religion in general, his specific reference is Christianity. Science and faith, he insists, are based on irreconcilable ways of understanding the universe.
The debate between Christianity and modern science is not new, of course, but Coyne and his fellow evolutionists are growing impatient at the fact that a majority of Americans still reject the theory of evolution. Continue Reading>>>

Misrepresenting Darwin?