Heather you can talk about this cell to that cell, and this theory “if given enough time” bla bla bla, but there is no proof of any life-form changing from one life-form to another, or being able to successfully procreate outside of it’s species – in fact there have been notable evolutionist scientists who have made the statement that the more you follow the evidence the harder it is to ignore ‘intelligent design’.

But unfortunately, for that to be the case one must actually give up a pre-disposition to proving your own pet theory, and to be open to the ‘awful’ possibility that there is someone whom we must acknowledge as the Creator.

Garth Penglase

So truth is now determined purely my mere weight of numbers? That sounds awfully scientific. BTW, just how many scientific papers are you the author of? It always amazes me when those who are clearly less qualified in a certain field feel free to denounce and condemn those who are obviously more qualified in that field.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Could Dawkins match that?!

Easily – he has evidence supporting his position on evolution. Sanford doesn’t. That’s what’s important.

80 papers might sound impressive to you, but how many of them offer better explanations for biological diversity than evolution? Which of the articles make a positive for creationism (or its watered down version, intelligent design)? Let us, purely for the sake of argument, imagine that all of them do – have you compared this figure to the number of scientific papers which support evolution?

Thanks

Heather Bates

Easily, the best book I’ve read in 10 years which demolishes evolution’s myth is by the Cornell geneticist Dr J. C. Sanford. His brilliant book’s title is ‘Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome’. Sanford has published 80 papers, has over 30 patents and 3 inventions, one of which is the “gene gun”. As his bio says, “A large fraction of the transgenetic crops grown in the world were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators.”

Could Dawkins match that?!

Marc Kay

From Adam to the present, humanity as a whole has told God to butt out and get lost. A tradition that is now being actively and vigorously pursued by the vast majority of humanity, including Dawkins and others with this mob mindset. So what are they all complaining about. They got what they asked for, crime, murder, rape, AIDS, disease, cancer, cheating, lies, wars, earthquakes and other natural disasters included. All part and parcel of a fallen creation, now severed and separated from God.

Moreover, it’s not God who is actively involved in facilitating all this misery, but Satan, who is repeatedly referred to as the father of lies and mass deception, and that would include evolution. As Christ affirms in John 10:10: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”

So why doesn’t God do something about it anyway. He is, and has been from the very beginning. And at great personal cost, leading to the crucifixion; the most horrendous and humiliating form of punishment the Roman’s could devise. It was a punishment of terrifying and lengthy agony, especially reserved for traitors, the most violent of criminals, and slaves. Yet God, in Christ, went to the cross for us, and voluntarily bore the penalty, stigma and suffering involved.

The most compelling aspect of Christ’s substitutionary death, was the profound ramifications of what actually took place. As humanity hurled, injustice, whipping, spitting, cursing, slander, spearing, and abuse at Christ, he was doing just the opposite. He was using the worst we could do to Him, as the very means by which He would do the very best for us. It would be the very means by which He would redeem us. As stated by John, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Little wonder that the Apostle Paul states, “How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation.” How indeed!.

In the end God will be God. And nothing sinful can exist in his perfectly just and holy presence, other than those in Christ. And all mobilized opposition to this reality will be swept aside like straw in the wind. Thus, every atheistic and humanist effort to exclude the creator from His creation, and attribute the wonders of the universe to chance, luck, and blind mindless natural selection, will be seen as utterly absurd. And one of the greatest deceptions and mass delusions in human history will be exposed for what it is. Just thought I would mention it!

John Heininger

And of course a very lively debate follows in the comments section there. In fact, you will probably find in that debate most of the issues that you want to see covered here. So as I say, no need to reinvent the wheel, or keep restating what has been discussed elsewhere.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I certainly share your frustration at what can be done in what is meant to be a brief comment. And your topic of preference is one of the least amenable to short comments! But it does not pay to restate what has already been said. Indeed, elsewhere I have been over this same territory time and time again, which is partly why I often refer people to books or other articles.

So let me briefly offer a few introductory comments. The topic is hugely complex and multilayered, even on the scientific level. Think of the major contentions between Dawkins and Gould for example. So there is far from a united front here, even in the Darwinist camp.

And there are many problems with the theory itself which have yet to be adequately dealt with, which is why I suggested the Berlinski book. (BTW, I hope every time I suggest a title, you don’t offer some excuse as to why you won’t take up the offer!) I am not a scientist, and so like most folk I rely on the expertise of others. So someone like Berlinski or Michael Denton can make my case far better than I.

And you would be aware that there is not only a large diversity of opinion in the evolutionary camp, but so too in the Christian camp. There are really plenty of options – some, it seems to me, better (more biblical and defensible) than others. Thus you have the full range here. There are theistic evolutionists, early-earth creationists, old-earth creationists, the ID camp, and plenty of other camps and variations in between.

And there are massive issues that have to be dealt with – historical, hermeneutical, exegetical, linguistic, theological, philosophical, as well as the scientific. So this is no slight topic that can easily be dealt with. Especially for the believer, there are many disciplines that must be seriously engaged with. And Christians can and do come up with differing conclusions to the matter.

So in one sense our debate is over – you could just pick the camp that seems closest to your position and leave it at that. The actual pros and cons of each position have been argued to death in innumerable places, so I am not sure what value we would have in rehashing it all here.

Then there are the claims being made by so many Neo-Darwinists that evolution is a totally unguided, non-designed, natural process, which has no place for the divine whatsoever. If that is so, then there is no compatibility at all. Others of course can speak of things such as NOMA (eg., Gould). Some believers see evolution and creation as in real conflict, while others are happy to let both somehow peacefully coexist. The permutations and combinations are endless, and each side argues its own case at length.

The point about Flew is he is a first-rate mind, and he does deal a lot with the problems of evolution in his book. One real issue of interest is what a major break he made from his atheist past. Yes, a deist now, but please read the last chapter of his book. There he offers N.T. Wright the chance to have the last word on the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

BTW, Spencer Gear already suggested you get Wright’s 2003 book (Fortress Press), since the issue is another one of your stumbling blocks. I heartily agree with Spencer – it is about the best thing going on the subject, so if you are really seeking after truth, you would jump to get a copy of this majestic work. And Flew was greatly impressed by Wright’s arguments, so if you get Flew’s book, you have at least two items from your shopping list somewhat covered.

Concerning deism, C.S. Lewis rightly spoke about how it is the preferred option which we would expect from those who really don’t want to commit their lives fully to God. Deism simply posits an absentee landlord. He set up the whole show, but now it all runs on its own. Such a God does not intervene in our world, and makes no demands on us. Perfect for the mildly religious who still want to live their own selfish lives, but make some pretence of religion.

But the call of Jesus is radical discipleship, in which we are to die to self, take up our cross, and follow him. No wonder so many folks prefer deism. And it amounts to practical atheism – no miracles, no divine intervention, no answered prayer. Sorry, but such a deity is hardly worth following, let alone worshipping. So deism really does not seem to be an option for the serious inquirer. It may be a stepping stone along the way (as it hopefully is for Flew), but something fuller and richer is needed.

Finally, a quick word about ID. I find that most people who criticise it have never in fact read the books put out by ID authors. They might have checked out an article or two, or rely on fellow atheists and evolutionists to get their understanding. I still find that the movement has much to offer, and you should read carefully the works of Dembski and others.

But as I say, this is a mega-topic, and I have already exceeded my limits again. So more next time.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

You have misunderstood me. Unfortunately it’s always a risk in the brevity of an online conversation. If I were a believer of course I would be in awe of and obedient to an all-powerful supernatural being. Only a fool would be otherwise. I can explain my comment much better if you really want me to expand on it, but we are not in conflict on this point.

You ask why I am here. I thought that was obvious from my original post. I would like to understand why Christians believe what they do when I can see so many difficulties. I am interested to know whether you, or anyone else here, have any answers that might resolve these difficulties. I am quite open to the possibility of God’s existence.

You invited me to “pick a few of your major concerns, and let’s have a go at them”, which I did. To restate the problem, is there a Christian theology which can rationalise the Biblical story of Creation, Redemption and The Fall with our modern scientific understanding of earth history and an evolutionary origin of human life?

If the answer is yes, I would very much like to hear a brief explanation, or even a link to some websites. I’m not too keen to buy more books unless I’m sure they will address the question properly. I’ve found plenty of material which claims the answer is no.

You have referred me to Flew’s book, but I understand he is a deist rather than a Christian, so I don’t think that would be very helpful. He has restated this position many times over recent years, and his views pose no difficulties for me.

Peter Richards, Qld