And so we come to the last installment of Evolution and Christian Faith. He continues to wow me with his direct, to-the-point attacks.
I left off right in the middle of a discussion on the evidences for evolution. It seems that he’s left no stone unturned.
There is a popular misconception that if animals or plants are crossed and produce fertile offspring they belong to the same species; otherwise not. This is no longer recognized as an adequate criterion in taxonomy by most scientists.
He readily makes the distinction between facts, and facts that are twisted.
Natural selection is a fact; the trouble comes when one tries to apply it as a factor in real evolution.
Charles Darwin was greatly perplexed as to how to explain social organization, such as the organization of an anthill or beehive…In the end Darwin “explained” it much as he did the evolution of the eye – merely by deciding that it should not bother him any longer.
He brings up a form of “evidence” that I was not previously aware of: serological tests. If blood samples from two foreign species are mixed, they should react violently, and the degree of this reaction is a measure of how similar the blood serum is. The results of these tests were inconclusive at best and completely random at worst. (To be honest, I think this has great potential for medicinal purposes, but not for evolution.) The reason I’d never heard of this method is, despite being touted as the greatest proof of evolution at the time of its conception, it was proven inconsequential and quietly swept under the rug.
Hyenas appear to be more closely related to cats than cats are to themselves.
It was found that even different parts of the same organ may react differently, and even different parts of the same cell.
Of course, not all possibilities can be open to the closed scientific mind:
An honest evolutionist should consider the possibility of creation and not dismiss it on the grounds that it removes the matter from the field of scientific inquiry.
The fossil record is the most commonly cited evidence for evolution – sadly it’s the most damning. Worst of all is the blatant manipulation of data. Any other field, and this sort of scientific misdemeanor would result in harsh penalties.
Sometimes strata are designated as of a certain age and then as fossils not seen at first are discovered in them, the designations are changed accordingly.
If the shoe don’t fit – make it.
But of supreme importance, as always, is the fact that Christians are actually believing this stuff. Atheists have to believe in something – we expect that. And evolution is that something, at least for now. Something must replace God. But for someone who calls himself a Christian to believe it…unacceptable. We must remove the plank from our own eye before attending to the speck in the world’s eye.
While the evolutionists are exerting more and more pressure upon the public to accept evolution, a number of conservative Christians are playing into their hands by telling the Christian public that it is now all right to accept at least a certain amount of evolution.
This is one of my favorites so far:
In a letter to the editor of the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Dr. John R. Howitt of Toronto chides the editor for taking the compromising view that “God may have worked through a biological process of natural selection.” Dr. Howitt replies that of course God could have worked through any process, but the question is not what God could have done, but what He did do.
Speaking of carbon dating:
This method of dating depends on a number of assumptions. Of course there is the assumption that the half life of carbon-14 has not changed during the period which is being measured…However, there is evidence that there have been alterations due to changes in the earth’s magnetic field, and also there seems to be evidences of changes in the radiation flux itself.
I first heard about variable half-lives about a year ago. Fascinating topic. Very hard to find any literature on it, either for or against it. That is suspicious.
The scientist who discovered radioactive dating (Willard Libby) was well aware of its limitations, including the following interesting fact:
Libby himself later said that he was very much surprised to find out that no material with a known date of more than about five thousand years was available as a standard.
So the man who discovered radioactive dating could not verify his method (shown by Ney and Winkler to be incredibly inaccurate) with any objects older than the Flood. That’s rather telling.
We can only speculate, but the evolutionists do a very great deal more speculating than Christians do.
What follows is 6 pages of single spaced quotes (81 to be exact) from respected evolutionary scientists admitting that evolution is “a baffling mystery.” (Andre Lwoff) It is a quite impressive collection as well as a useful arsenal. Buy the book.
If scientists produce something which can be defined as living, this does not necessarily mean that life on earth was produced by a similar method. If the scientists are successful in their endeavor, it will be through much intelligent planning and the use of elaborate equipment. It will be very different from the chance actions which they postulate started the original life on earth.
Interestingly enough, some scientists claimed a few years ago to have made amino acids assemble into proteins by replicating what they thought to be primeval conditions. Whether this was actually what happened or media hype remains to be seen (by me, since I can’t find the paper), and there is no doubt it is a significant source of controversy as to whether this constitutes the creation of life. Davidheiser makes the excellent point, “so?” a point that is far underused. What’s the real issue? Does this prove what they want it to? What are their assumptions and preconditions? All important questions for good scientists to ask, yet often ignored when the answers are unsatisfactory.
Speaking of man in the image of God:
In Old Testament times, certain men were privileged to see and talk with God as a man, and we understand this to be the Lord Jesus, for no man has seen God the Father at any time (John 1:18).
I point this out for two reasons. First of all, most people have apparently forgotten this in their haste to throw the Old Testament baby out with the Old Covenant bathwater. Second, it is stunning the ease at which Davidheiser goes from talking about complicated scientific concepts to Old Testament theology in the Gospel of John without skipping a beat. We need more men like him.
I will conclude this post by briefly summarizing the section on the ancestors of man. Davidheiser goes through all the famous hoaxes and points out the ease with which they are disproven, as well as the comments by the few scientists who were able to view the better preserved skeletons – all of whom conclude that there are no features in any case that point to a “missing link,” and in many cases, the skeletons were indistinguishable from “modern man.” Surprise! Of course, if you want to study these remains now, good luck with that. They are not allowed to be studied, on account of damage through handling. I’ve never been one to call conspiracy…