Friday, April 18, 2008
Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” hits theaters nationwide tonight. Are you going?
“Expelled” shows how educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – all for merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.
Whether or not you want to see it, here’s my two cents on the subject:
1. I do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
2. I do not believe the earth was created in six “literal” days.
3. I believe in micro-evolution (adaptations within a specific species), but not macro-evolution (single-cell organisms mutating into human beings).
Micro-evolution is all about explaining how people getting taller, animals adapt to their surroundings, and country music singers stop wearing mullets.
Macro-evolution is all about explaining how single-cell creatures brewed in a gooey soup developed through mutation and natural selection into the vast array of plant and animal life that populate the planet.
3. Many educated Christians have been able to reconcile their belief in creation with macro-evolution (i.e. God could have instantaneously created the world but then created humans through the evolutionary process).
4. I’m not one of them.
I’m firmly in the “conflicted Intelligent Design” camp. I don’t buy into all the young earth creationist stuff, but at the same time I don’t buy the idea that humans are the accidental result of random mutations over billions of years.
Why?
1. Scientists I respect and trust reject the theory of macro-evolution.
Read what Michael Denton, the famous molecular biologist said: “[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.”
2. Macro-evolution contradicts one of the most basic laws of science -- the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Everyone knows that Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in any system, energy moves from order to disorder. Things tend to break down into the less-complicated pieces rather than increase in complexity.
3. The lack of evidence of transitional fossil forms.
If macro-evolution is accurate, the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else - with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men. Instead of finding billions of confused family fossils, scientists have found exactly the opposite. Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied (except televangelists).
Darwin himself confessed, "There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record." (Life and Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25).
4. Macro-evolution is a theory. Just a theory.
Check out Expelled tonight and tell me if you agree. Here’s the trailer:
Conflicted About Evolution vs. Creation? -- Go See "Expelled" Tonight
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
if i can believe that a Man who was dead, rose again, literally, after 3 days (which i do), then i can believe there was a strong guy who killed 2,000 people with the jaw bone of an ass, there was another guy who was swallowed and lived inside of a fish for 3 days, and all the other bible stories, including the creation of man. hey, if He can create the world and universe instantaneously (through big bang or whatever)- then why not people? science says a dead man cannot come back to life half a week later. why should i believe everything science has to say? just my humble opinion.
Shamgar the magnificent, killed 600 with a stick.
When challenging the evolutionist I ask some of these questions?
How did a woodpecker evolve. The first time he would hit his head he would die.
Bacterial Flagella - This is for the hard liners, so this is not a complex organism. Doesn't complexity imply design.
Follow up question - How did the DNA evolve, and how many Trillions of years did that take.
So, If I throw a stick of dynamite into a bucket of ink enough times I can produce the complete writings of Shakespear.
Have you ever heard of Hydroplate theory?
By the way, Carbon dating accuracy...why did a freshly spewed rock from a volcano produce a carbon date range from 150,000 - 50,000 years?
This is such a fun topic.
I can't wait to see this movie.
I'm definitely going to see this. It infuriates me that my kids are taught evolution in school as the only possibility.
The trinity of the evolutionist: Time, Chance & Matter. And they think we have faith!
I'm having trouble harmonizing your blog on "hell" a fews weeks ago with this one rejecting a literal six days creation. I don't fault your rejection of 6,000 years, because the Bible does not teach that. However, I believe that you have difficulty going beyond about 10,000 years and still accept the Genesis accounts as "truth."
I saw the Expelled movie last evening and it is very good. Although Ben Stien does not preach a "six-day creation" by any means, he does clearly demonstrate the blind faith of evolutionists and their close-minded determination to hear no alternatives or allow such to be presented to society.
"I believe that you have difficulty going beyond about 10,000 years and still accept the Genesis accounts as "truth."
Why?
As my old science prof used to say, "We have no idea how much miracle and process went into the creation of the world."
For instance, when God created Adam he was a grown man. Correct? He didn't create him as an embryo, etc.
I see no contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2 and a 4.6 billion year old earth, or whatever the typical University Geology prof says the earth is.
Why would you?
Post a Comment