Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G" (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joined the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

G: What elephant?

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room.  It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there! 

Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research says:

[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing.  And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself.

Author: Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute .

Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA's Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:

Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Author: Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute

OLAADEGBU:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

One cannot rule out the theory of Evolution out of hand. Evolution as a "theory" in itself is not to be confused with arguments deriving from it. Such arguments have been neatly packaged as "naturalism, atheism, secularism" and a few other "-isms". These "-isms" are not the same thing as the theory itself, and we should not assume that the theory is entirely wrong.

If I may apply an analogy here by using a counter theory - CREATIONISM. Please understand that this is another one of those "-isms" that has been built around "creation" belief. I don't have any problem with creation itself; but we have problems with the early ideas of creationism that postulated many things that have been clearly disregarded by many creationists. Example? Ask the man who first thought the earth was spherical instead of flat! What happened to him? No, not creation believers - rather, it was the "creationism militancy" than thumbed him down.

Although some aspects of the theory of evolution remain questioned to this day, as serious thinkers, can we in all conscience discredit such concepts as "micro-evolution"? Are there no "changes in species"? And if there are, is it not true that is what the theory of Evolution is also seeking to study?

I cannot agree presently with those who assume that the theory of Evolution is a (Godless) theory. Such a thinker is mistaking the theor of Evolution (ToE) with the "-isms" that are built around it. I hope this distinction should be clear to us in future.

OLAADEGBU:

Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA's Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:

Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Evolution and creation mean different things to different people. It will be helpful if discussants define what they understand by evolution and creation. Then it will be easier to discuss the topic.

Let's listen in on an dramatised conversation between a biblical creationist "C" and an evolutionist "E" as they discuss some recent scientific news headlines:

E:  Have you heard about the research findings regarding mouse evolution?

C:  Are you referring to the finding of coat color change in beach mice?

E:  Yes, isn't it a wonderful example of evolution in action?

C:  No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in action, which is merely selecting information that already exists.

E:  Well, what about antibiotic resistance in bacteria?  Don't you think that's a good example of evolution occurring right before our eyes?

C:  No, you seem to be confusing the terms "evolution" and "natural selection."

E:  But natural selection is the primary mechanism that drives evolution.

C:  Natural selection doesn't drive molecule-to-man evolution; you are giving natural selection a power that it does not have - one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecule-to-man-evolution requires.  But natural selection simply can't do that because it works with information that already exists.

Natural selection is an observable process that is often purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable molecules-to-man evolution.  The concepts are indeed different, though some mistakenly interchange the two.

There are two major questions to answer for ourselves to arrive at the truth:

1.  How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable phenomenon of natural selection?

2.  Could this process cause the increase in genetic information necessary for molecule-to- man evolution?

ricadelide:

Interestingly, just over a century ago peer-reviewed consensus in geology (although the field was still relatively young at that time) was that the earth was millions of years old. Within less than two hundred years, that consensus has grown by a thousand-fold.
If the principle of uniformitarianism and others which form the basis for geology are not true (and which unfortunately cannot be proven either way, being in the past) that figure could be drastically different from what the present consensus is. 'Confidence' IMHO is not a term one should readily recurse to if one's underlying principles and assumptions aren't known for certain.
Cheers.

The consensus was that the Earth was at least millions of years old. These days, the consensus, still based on evidence, is that the Earth is at least so many billions of years old. More evidence could change the figure in the future, but it's unlikely the age will be going downwards, and it certainly won't be rounded down to the Young Earth Creationist's belief of the age of the Earth: the laughable 6,000-10,000 years rubbish.

syrup:

One cannot rule out the theory of Evolution out of hand. Evolution as a "theory" in itself is not to be confused with arguments deriving from it. Such arguments have been neatly packaged as "naturalism, atheism, secularism" and a few other "-isms". These "-isms" are not the same thing as the theory itself, and we should not assume that the theory is entirely wrong.

If I may apply an analogy here by using a counter theory - CREATIONISM. Please understand that this is another one of those "-isms" that has been built around "creation" belief. I don't have any problem with creation itself; but we have problems with the early ideas of creationism that postulated many things that have been clearly disregarded by many creationists. Example? Ask the man who first thought the earth was spherical instead of flat! What happened to him? No, not creation believers - rather, it was the "creationism militancy" than thumbed him down.

The genesis of the conflict all started at the conflict as narrated in the book of Genesis.  God created Adam in His own image and made him the vice-regent on earth, only to be accountable to Him, but Adam chose to do his own will by eating out of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and so he took the lead in the use of cults, religions and ideologies ie -isms which is man's way of solving the human problem. 

Isms that came out this fall are many which are man's false philosophies: Atheism, Agnotism, Animism, Polytheism, dualism, Monotheism, Deism, Theism, Existentialism, Humanism, Rationalism, Materialism, Capitalism, Facism, Marxism, Communism, Colonialism, Mysticsm, Pantheism, Moonism, Open Theism, Multiculturalism, etc.  The list goes on. The only ism that I subscribe to are the two baptisms and evangelism   .

Practically, they all boil down to two major philosophies: Evolutionism which is the main axiom for atheists, humanists, naturalists, materialists and even feminists and homosexualists (who are now known as secular humanists), facists, colonialists, communists and surprisingly open theists; and Biblical creationists on the other hand, who are essentially Tri-une Theists.

Evolutionary theory is a faith based on fancy while biblical creation is based on facts.  In evolutionary theory man is free to make his rules of living, but in biblical creation, God makes the rule as to where humanity lives, what we are to do, and what we are to eat and not to eat. Evolution is based on coincidence while creation is based on providence, evolution depends on random choice while biblical creation depends on design choice.  In evolution they believe everything is a result of a cosmic accident while in biblical creation we believe that we are all here as a result of a deliberate design.

It is not all those who call themselves creationists that can be referred to as biblical creationists.  It is one thing to know about a divine being or God and it another thing to know and love God and His revealed Word experientially.  If the so called creationists read their bibles slowly, circumspecfully and prayerfully they would have discovered that it was documented in the bible that the earth is round long before the scientists discovered it was so (Isa.40:22; Job.22:14; Prov.8:27) instead of believing that the world was flat.  The so called creationists or rather "creationism militants" are at it again by compromising that the earth is billions of years old when the bible says it is only a few thousand of years old.

syrup:

Although some aspects of the theory of evolution remain questioned to this day, as serious thinkers, can we in all conscience discredit such concepts as "micro-evolution"? Are there no "changes in species"? And if there are, is it not true that is what the theory of Evolution is also seeking to study?

I cannot agree presently with those who assume that the theory of Evolution is a (Godless) theory. Such a thinker is mistaking the theor of Evolution (ToE) with the "-isms" that are built around it. I hope this distinction should be clear to us in future.

m_nwankwo:

Evolution and creation mean different things to different people. It will be helpful if discussants define what they understand by evolution and creation. Then it will be easier to discuss the topic.

When discussing natural selection as a possible mechanism for evolution, it is important to define terms.  Evolutionists and biblical creationists view these terms differently, but it comes down to how we interpret the evidence in the light of our foundation.  I view natural selection using The Truth Book as my foundation, evolutionists use man's truth as their foundation.

The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically.  Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world.  It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the 'kinds' and works to preserve the genetic viability of the 'kinds'.  Genesis 1:21-24

Simply put, the changes that are observed today show variation within the created kind, which is a horizontal change.  For a molecules-to-man evolutionary model,  there must be a change from one kind into another-- a vertical change.  This is simply not observed.  We have never seen a bacterium like H. pylori give rise to something like a dog.   Instead, we simply observe variations within each created kind. 

Evolution requires an increase in information that results in a directional movement from molecules to man.  Natural selection cannot be a mechanism for evolution because it results in a decrease in information and is not directional.  Speciation may occur as a result of natural selection, but it only occurs within a kind.  Therefore, it is also not a mechanism for evolution but rather supports the biblical model as recorded in the book of Genesis.

Natural selection cannot be the driving force for molecule to man evolution when it does not have that power, nor should it be confused with molecules-to man-evolution.  Natural selection is an observable phenomenon that preserves genetic viability and allows limited variation within a kind - nothing more, nothing less.QED  

It is a great confirmation of the Bible's history.   So I praise the Lord for the uncompromising biblical creationist scientists that have used their knowledge and understanding of science to discover and properly interprete the truth that was already written in the Truth book.   

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

This is someone's impression of Creation

God Created heaven and the earth.  Quickly he was faced with a class action suit for failure to file an environmental impact statement.  He was granted a temporary permit for the project, but was stymied with the cease and desist order for the earthly part.

Appearing at the hearing, God was asked why he began his earthly project in the first place.  He replied that he just liked to be creative.

Then God said, "Let there be light", and immediately the officials demanded to know how the light would be made.  Would there be strip mining?  What about thermal pollution?  God explained that the light would come from a huge ball of fire.  God was granted provisional permission to make light, assuming that no smoke would result from the ball of fire: that he would obtain a building permit; and to conserve energy, would turn the light off half the time.  God agreed and said he would call the light "Day" and the darkness "Night".  Officials replied that they were not interested in semantics.

God said, "Let the earth bring forth green herb and bear much seed". The EPA agreed so long as native seed was used.  Then God said, "Let waters bring forth creeping creatures begetting life; and the fowl that may fly over the earth". Officials pointed out this would require approval from the Department of Game coordinated with the Heavenly Wildlife Federation and the Audubongelic Society.

Everything was O.K. until God said he wanted to complete the project in Six days.  Officials said it would take at least 200 days to review the application and impact statement.  After that there would be a public hearing.  Then there would be a 10-12 month approval period before,,  

At this point God created Hell.

olaadegbu, what can i say?obviously you are a child of God and i commend you,i share exactly the same view as you, remain blessed!

m_nwankwo:

Evolution and creation mean different things to different people. It will be helpful if discussants define what they understand by evolution and creation. Then it will be easier to discuss the topic.

There are two types of evolution that are commonly referred to: microevolution and macroevolution.

Macroevolution is the concept that over time one species can evolve into a new species (invertebrate into vertebrate, fish into amphibian, amphibian into reptile, reptile into bird,…) This has never been observed nor is there any evidence it ever happened, therefore it is not a fact or a theory.  In order to have macroevolution take place there must be a mechanism that can add beneficial information to an organisms DNA.  The mechanism commonly stated to perform this task is mutations.  However, there are no known mutations that have been both beneficial and added new information to the DNA.  This means macroevolution is an unverified hypothesis.

Microevolution is not evolution. It is used in two different contexts.  First, it is often used to mean random errors in the DNA.  Random errors do not cause beneficial information to be added to an organisms DNA.  Second, it is often confused with natural selection and genetic variability.  Both of these work with existing information and do not add any new morphological structures necessary for evolution.

If evolution is not a fact or a theory, then what is it?  Based on the scientific method it qualifies as a model or a hypothesis.  - Mike Riddle

Someone else describes evolution like a junk or scrap yard that a hurricane or tornado visited and a boeing 747 was left in its aftermath   It certainly takes more faith to believe in the myth of evolution than it is to believe in creation.

Creation is a faith based on facts while evolution is based on fancy.  In biblical Creation you have the Father God, in evolution you have the mother nature.  In Creation you have a Personal choice but in evolution you have impersonal chance.  You have a designed purpose in biblical creation but in evolution you have a random pattern; In creation you have supernatural production and in evolution you have natural production; In creation we have an open situation, in evolution you have a closed system; In creation we have providence, in evolution you have coincidence; In creation we have a  God who is free to make man in His Own Image but in evolution you have man who is free to make God in his own image.  God is Lord in creation but man is lord in evolution.  Can I go on?

OLAADEGBU:



There are two types of evolution that are commonly referred to: microevolution and macroevolution.

Macroevolution is the concept that over time one species can evolve into a new species (invertebrate into vertebrate, fish into amphibian, amphibian into reptile, reptile into bird,…) This has never been observed nor is there any evidence it ever happened, therefore it is not a fact or a theory. In order to have macroevolution take place there must be a mechanism that can add beneficial information to an organisms DNA. The mechanism commonly stated to perform this task is mutations. However, there are no known mutations that have been both beneficial and added new information to the DNA. This means macroevolution is an unverified hypothesis.



Microevolution is not evolution. It is used in two different contexts. First, it is often used to mean random errors in the DNA. Random errors do not cause beneficial information to be added to an organisms DNA. Second, it is often confused with natural selection and genetic variability. Both of these work with existing information and do not add any new morphological structures necessary for evolution.

If evolution is not a fact or a theory, then what is it? Based on the scientific method it qualifies as a model or a hypothesis. - Mike Riddle

Someone else describes evolution like a junk or scrap yard that a hurricane or tornado visited and a boeing 747 was left in its aftermath It certainly takes more faith to believe in the myth of evolution than it is to believe in creation.

Creation is a faith based on facts while evolution is based on fancy. In biblical Creation you have the Father God, in evolution you have the mother nature. In Creation you have a Personal choice but in evolution you have impersonal chance. You have a designed purpose in biblical creation but in evolution you have a random pattern; In creation you have supernatural production and in evolution you have natural production; In creation we have an open situation, in evolution you have a closed system; In creation we have providence, in evolution you have coincidence; In creation we have a God who is free to make man in His Own Image but in evolution you have man who is free to make God in his own image. God is Lord in creation but man is lord in evolution. Can I go on?

Thanks for explaining what you understand by evolution and creation. I respect your views but it has no science behind it.

OLAADEGBU:



There are two types of evolution that are commonly referred to: microevolution and macroevolution.

Actually, they are both differentiations of the same process.

Macroevolution is the concept that over time one species can evolve into a new species (invertebrate into vertebrate, fish into amphibian, amphibian into reptile, reptile into bird,…) This has never been observed nor is there any evidence it ever happened, therefore it is not a fact or a theory. In order to have macroevolution take place there must be a mechanism that can add beneficial information to an organisms DNA. The mechanism commonly stated to perform this task is mutations. However, there are no known mutations that have been both beneficial and added new information to the DNA. This means macroevolution is an unverified hypothesis.

Wrong on all counts. First, there is genetic evidence that indicates that speciation has occured. Two persuasive lines of evidence that pertain particularly to humans are: shared endogenous retroviral insertions and the presence of chromosome no.2 in humans. The former indicates a common ancestry for humans and other apes, as endogenous retroviruses act, essentialy, as genetic markers in the various species. The latter, on the other hand, shows the fusion of chromosomes present in chimps, also indicating common ancestry.

Second, the discovery of fossils of transitional animals constitutes another line of evidence for speciation. Several dinosaur-bird transitionals are perhaps the more famous, although they aren't the only ones available.

Third, there have been observed instances of speciation. I have given at least two in this thread.

Finally, actually beneficial mutations have been well documented, from the Apo-AIM in humans, to the calculations done by Pete Harcoff which show how, even with highly conservative figures, beneficial mutations aren't a problem.

Microevolution is not evolution. It is used in two different contexts. First, it is often used to mean random errors in the DNA. Random errors do not cause beneficial information to be added to an organisms DNA. Second, it is often confused with natural selection and genetic variability. Both of these work with existing information and do not add any new morphological structures necessary for evolution.

Not quite. Microevolution is evolution. Copying errors do cause mutations individuals., and these can transmute the genetic makeup of a species through selection or drift.

If evolution is not a fact or a theory, then what is it? Based on the scientific method it qualifies as a model or a hypothesis. - Mike Riddle

Wrong.

[snip]

It wouldn't kill you to read this thread and understand what it is you're arguing against, you know.

The videolink below shows the presentation of a licensed ardent evolutionist scientist who for the most part of 27 years learnt and taught the theory of evolution.  This is not for those who have already made up their minds and don't want to be confused with the facts.  It is for those who are dilligently and earnestly seeking for the truth and for those who have been questioning the most basic and foundational revealed truth in the book of Genesis especially chapters 1 to 11, and the rest of the scriptures.  This website amongst others will make you to discover the evidential proof of the accuracy and authenticity of the Truth Book commonly referred to as the Holy Bible.  Click on the link below, sit back and enjoy.

http://www.creationworldview.org/sample.asp

Here is an article from the dallas observer on creationism.

I asked Baugh why science was so threatened by his work.

"They are threatened, aren't they?" he asked with a smile, surprised, it seemed, that a reporter would ask such a friendly question. "I ask the question, 'What are you afraid of, aren't we looking for truth, good science?'

"They're threatened because, in my opinion, if you lay the two scientific theories, creation and evolution, side by side, innately the student chooses creation. It's obvious that he's too complicated, that living systems are too complicated to have arisen by chance."

This has been the main tenet of creationism from the beginning, and it has held great sway with the public. In fact, in the 1970s and '80s, several states, including Louisiana and Arkansas, passed laws that either banned the teaching of evolution or required that where evolution was taught, creationism must be taught with it. That ended in 1987 when the US. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creationism in public schools violated the constitutional separation of church and state because it relied on biblical texts and "lacked a clear secular purpose."

In the aftermath of that decision, the Institute for Creation Research, which was founded by Morris in 1970, proposed a new strategy for creationists. The ICR suggested that "school boards and teachers should be strongly encouraged at least to stress the scientific arguments against evolution in their classes, even if they don't wish to recognize these as evidences and arguments for creationism."

Edwards v. Aguillard also gave birth to a new arm of the creationist movement. Not long after the decision, the Texas-based publishers of the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People, which had been at the heart of the case, changed references to "creation" to "intelligent design." The book also offered the first definition to appear in print of intelligent design, which asserts that life is too complex to have arisen by chance and therefore must have a creator.

Today, young-Earth creationism and intelligent design represent two distinct belief systems within the creationist movement. Intelligent design, which does not define who the creator is and does not rely on the Bible as its foundation, has attracted more than 100 scientists—molecular biologists, biochemists and physicists among them—from places such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Chicago. Young-Earth creationists are much larger in number, primarily because of the explosion of Christian fundamentalism across the country in the last 50 years. While members of both camps claim their movement is different from the other, even conservatives like Rush Limbaugh have said there is no difference. "While young-Earth creationists and proponents of intelligent design do not always agree, their goals are the same: to undermine the teaching of evolution and introduce some form of creationist teaching into the classroom," says Barbara Forrest, an expert on the movement.

Back at the museum, I asked Baugh if he thought creationism should be taught in public schools.

"Of course," he said. "It has more evidence than evolution does."

He called over a high school math teacher named John Heffner, who had been listening in. Heffner was getting ready to give a lecture on how math proved that evolution was impossible. He wore jeans and cowboy boots and the look of a man weary with where the world had gone.

"Let's face it, evolution is the only theory of science that needs laws on the books to protect it," he said. "I think it's time to uncensor science. The evidence for creation is so strong that it's really illogical to believe anything else."

He quickly ran through his criticisms of evolutionary theory, which could have been cribbed from the notes of a Creationism 101 class. He began with peppered moths.

In England, during the Industrial Revolution, factories spewed so much black smoke into the air that soot covered everything, including the trees in the forest. As a result, moths began to grow darker. Those that did not—the white-colored peppered moth—were gobbled up by hungry birds, while the darker-colored moths blended in with the trees. It was natural selection at work, and seemingly irrefutable proof that evolution was real.

"Well, it was all fake," Heffner said. "They faked the results."

He continued with Haekel's Embryo, which supposedly showed that the human embryo goes through evolutionary stages—first it has gills like a fish, then a tail like a monkey—before it is fully developed.

Well, that was a fake too. Haekel had changed drawings of dog embryos to make them look similar to human embryos.

And that wasn't all. Lucy, the ape-like fossilized skeleton found in Africa in 1974—the supposed "missing link"—was more plaster of Paris than actual skeleton.

"And on and on it goes," he said. "I think it's time for scientists to stop trotting out these tired old icons, recycling them every year in the textbooks, and move into the 21st century. Modern science, with its understanding of DNA and the human genome, has shown that the sort of complex information sequencing that exists on the cellular level could not have arisen by chance."

These arguments, roundly refuted by science, are used by creationists of all stripes, whether they are men like Baugh, who are more steeped in Bible literacy than formal scientific training, or college professors at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has become the leading think tank for the intelligent design movement.

"The common misconception is that we want to bring the Bible into the classroom and just preach out of Genesis instead of teaching science, and nothing could be further from the truth," Heffner said.

"We actually want more evolution taught. We want the whole story taught. What we're getting right now is an edited version. The problems with evolution are numerous; they are well-known. We pride ourselves for teaching kids to think for themselves, and yet we don't give them the full information."

Heffner told me he was keenly interested in the upcoming State Board of Education review of the science curriculum. In fact, he had appeared before the board in 2003, when a biology textbook was up for review.

"I'll ask you what I asked them, 'Whose kids are these anyway? They're not the evolutionists' kids alone. They're our kids too.' And my second question to them was, 'What's wrong with the truth? What's wrong with telling kids the truth?'"

The way Heffner saw it, Texas was just the latest battleground in a war that had been raging ever since publication of Origin of Species. Secular science, and Darwinism in particular, had done more to erode the moral fabric of our country than anything else, he said. For him the choice was simple. On one hand there was Jesus and the belief in a life after death, and on the other was Darwin and pond scum.

"We look at what kids are doing now—with drugs and sex and all the violence and gangs—and we wonder why. Well, it's obvious. We expect kids to make the right decision and then you tell them that they're nothing but evolved pond scum, nothing but an animal? And you wonder why their world view is basically one of 'me and now.'"

Before I left, I went back to the original museum to get a look at the fossils Baugh claimed to have dug from the river. Baugh's assistant showed me a duckbill dinosaur skull, some dinosaur eggs out of China and the fossilized print of a three-toed dinosaur. During the same dig, he said, they had also found the footprint of a prehistoric woman, size 7.

He said he knew this sounded crazy to a lot of people, and that he regularly fielded hostile questions from science teachers and the like. But he had numbers on his side. "More than 50 percent of Americans reject evolution and believe in some form of creationism," he told me. He also had power on his side. President George W. Bush had advocated teaching the "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory. Governor Perry had appointed a young-Earth creationist to head the board. And state Representative Warren Chisum, the powerful chair of the House Appropriations Committee, had gone so far as to distribute a memo to his fellow legislators attacking evolution as an anti-religious plot cooked up by an ancient Jewish sect. Perhaps the State Board of Education, being an elected body, was simply reflecting the will of the people.

As I was leaving, I thought of something Heffner had said: "If more than half the population doesn't believe in evolution, don't we also deserve equal representation in public schools? It's our tax dollars too, after all."

syrup:

If I may apply an analogy here by using a counter theory - CREATIONISM. Please understand that this is another one of those "-isms" that has been built around "creation" belief. I don't have any problem with creation itself; but we have problems with the early ideas of creationism that postulated many things that have been clearly disregarded by many creationists. Example? Ask the man who first thought the earth was spherical instead of flat! What happened to him? No, not creation believers - rather, it was the "creationism militancy" than thumbed him down.

I recently came across a website that gives an explicit breakdown of the principles of creationism and evolutionism.  This paints a clearer picture of the battle of the worldviews, explaining what creationism and evolutionism means to different people.

Take a tour of the weblink below and explore the principles behind both worldviews and then make an informed choice.

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3753/302/

This is an example where the secular media mischaraterizes creation science.


http://www.icr.org/

This is an interview of the journey of a former evolutionist to being a scientific biblical creationist.

From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony
by Gary Parker, Ed.D.

Moderator: "Dr. Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist."

Yes, indeed. The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me. It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe continually progressing toward grander things. Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged.

As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin, and salvation. God was unnecessary, or at least did no more than make the particles and processes from which all else mechanistically followed. "Sin" was only the result of animal instincts that had outlived their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest, and perhaps one day the benefits of genetic engineering.

With no God to answer to, no God with a purpose for mankind, I saw our destiny in our own hands. Tied in with the idea of inevitable evolutionary progress, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best.

"Did your faith in evolution affect your classroom teaching?"

It surely did. In my early years of teaching at both the high school and college levels, I worked hard to convince my students that evolution was true. I even had students crying in class. I thought I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution. In fact, a discussion with high school teachers in a graduate class I was assisting included just that goal: encouraging students to adapt their religious beliefs to the concept of evolution!

"I thought you weren't supposed to teach religion in the public school system."

Well, maybe you can't teach the Christian religion, but there is no trouble at all in teaching the evolutionary religion. I've done it myself, and I've watched the effects that accepting evolution has on a person's thought and life. Of course, I once thought that effect was good, "liberating the mind from the shackles of revealed religion" and making a person's own opinions supreme.

"Since you found evolution such a satisfying religion and enjoyed teaching it to others, what made you change your mind?"

I've often marvelled that God could change anyone as content as I was, especially with so many religious leaders (including two members of the Bible department where I once taught!) actually supporting evolution over creation. But through a Bible study group my wife and I joined at first for purely social reasons, God slowly convinced me to lean not on my own opinions or those of other human authorities, but in all my ways to acknowledge Him and to let Him direct my paths. It is a blessed experience that gives me an absolute reference point and a truly mindstretching eternal perspective.

"Did your conversion to Christianity then make you a creationist?"

No, at least not at first. Like so many before and since, I simply combined my new-found Christian religion with the "facts" of science and became a theistic evolutionist and then a progressive creationist. I thought the Bible told me who created, and that evolution told me how.

But then I began to find scientific problems with the evolutionary part, and theological problems with the theistic part. I still have a good many friends who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation, but I finally had to give it up.

"What theological problems did you find with theistic evolution?"

Perhaps the key point centered around the phrase, "very good." At the end of each creation period (except the second) God said that His creation was good. At the end of the sixth period He said that all His works of creation were very good.

Now all the theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists I know, including myself at one time, try to fit "geologic time" and the fossil record into the creation periods. But regardless of how old they are, the fossils show the same things that we have on earth today -- famine, disease, disaster, extinction, floods, earthquakes, etc. So if fossils represent stages in God's creative activity, why should Christians oppose disease and famine or help preserve an endangered species? If the fossils were formed during the creation week, then all these things would be very good.

When I first believed in evolution, I had sort of a romantic idea about evolution as unending progress. But in the closing paragraphs of the Origin of Species, Darwin explained that evolution, the "production of higher animals," was caused by "the war of nature, from famine and death." Does "the war of nature, from famine and death" sound like the means God would have used to create a world all very good?

In Genesis 3, Romans 8 and many other passages, we learn that such negative features were not part of the world that God created, but entered only after Adam’s sin. By ignoring this point, either intentionally or unintentionally, theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists come into conflict with the whole pattern of Scripture: the great themes of Creation, the Fall, and Redemption -- how God made the world perfect and beautiful; how man's sin brought a curse upon the world; and how Christ came to save us from our sins and to restore all things.

"With the Scriptures so plain throughout, are there still many Christians who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation?"

Yes, there am. Of course, I can't speak for all of them, but I can tell you the problems I had to overcome before I could give up theistic evolution myself. First, I really hate to argue or take sides. When I was a theistic evolutionist I didn't have to argue with anybody. I just chimed in smiling at the end of an argument with something like, "Well, the important thing is to remember that God did it."

Then there is the matter of intellectual pride. Creationists are often looked down upon as ignorant throw-backs to the nineteenth century or worse, and I began to think of all the academic honors I had, and to tell you the truth, I didn't want to face that academic ridicule.

Finally, I, like many Christians, was honestly confused about the Biblical issues. As I told you, I first became a creationist while teaching at a Christian college. Believe it or not, I got into big trouble with the Bible Department. As soon as I started teaching creation instead of evolution, the Bible Department people challenged me to a debate. The Bible Department defended evolution, and two other scientists and I defended creation!

That debate pointed out how religious evolution really is, and the willingness of leaders to speak out in favor of evolution makes it harder for the average Christian to take a strong stand on creation. To tell you the truth, I don't think I would have had the courage, especially as a professor of biology, to give up evolution or theistic evolution without finding out that the bulk of scientific data actually argues against evolution.

"In that sense, then, it was really the scientific data that completed your conversion from evolution, through theistic evolution and progressive creation to Biblical, scientific creationism?"

Yes, it was. At first I was embarrassed to be both a creationist and a science professor, and I wasn't really sure what to do with the so-called "mountains of evidence" for evolution. A colleague in biology, Allen Davis, introduced me to Morris' and Whitcomb's famous book, The Genesis Flood. At first I reacted strongly against the book, using all the evolutionist arguments I knew so well. But at that crucial time, the Lord provided me with a splendid Science Faculty Fellowship award from the N.S.F., so I resolved to pursue doctoral studies in biology, while also adding a cognate in geology to check out some of the creationist arguments first hand. To my surprise, and eventually to my delight, just about every course I took was full of more and more problems in evolution, and more and more support for the basic points of Biblical creationism outlined in The Genesis Flood and Morris' later book, Scientific Creationism.

"Can you give us some examples?"

Yes indeed. One of the tensest moments for me came when we started discussing uranium-lead and other radiometric methods for estimating the age of the earth. I just knew all the creationists' arguments would be shot down and crumbled, but just the opposite happened.

In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn't have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too uncertain and conflicting. Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the professor said something like this, "If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith." That's what he told us, "keep the faith." If it was a matter of keeping faith, I now had another faith I preferred to keep.

"Are there other examples like that?"

Lots of them. One concerns the word paraconformity. In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting. My heart really started pounding when paraconformities and other unconformities came up in geology class. What did the professor say? Essentially the same thing as Morris and Whitcomb. He presented paraconformities as a real mystery and something very difficult to explain in evolutionary or uniformitarian terms. We even had a field trip to study paraconformities that emphasized the point.

So again, instead of challenging my creationist ideas, all the geology I was learning in graduate school was supporting it. I even discussed a creationist interpretation of paraconformities with the professor, and I finally found myself discussing further evidence of creation with fellow graduate students and others.

"What do you mean by ‘evidence of creation?’"

All of us can recognize objects that man has created, whether paintings, sculptures, or just a Coke bottle. Because the pattern of relationships in those objects is contrary to relationships that time, chance, and natural physical processes would produce, we know an outside creative agent was involved. I began to see the same thing in a study of living things, especially in the area of my major interest, molecular biology.

All living things depend upon a working relationship between inheritable nucleic acid molecules, like DNA, and proteins, the chief structural and functional molecules. To make proteins, living creatures use a sequence of DNA bases to line up a sequence of amino acid Rgroups. But the normal reactions between DNA and proteins are the "wrong" ones, and act with time and chance to disrupt living systems. Just as phosphorus, glass, and copper will work together in a television set only if properly arranged by human engineers, so DNA and protein will work in productive harmony only if properly ordered by an outside creative agent.

I presented the biochemical details of this DNA-protein argument to a group of graduate students and professors, including my professor of molecular biology. At the end of the talk, my professor offered no criticism of the biology or biochemistry I had presented. She just said that she didn't believe it because she didn't believe there was anything out there to create life. But if your faith permits belief in a Creator you can see the evidence of creation in the things that have been made (as Paul implies in Rom. 1:18-20).

"Has creationism influenced your work as a scientist and as a teacher?"

Yes, in many positive ways. Science is based on the assumption of an understandable orderliness in the operation of nature, and the Scriptures guarantee both that order and man's ability to understand it, infusing science with enthusiastic hope and richer meaning. Furthermore, creationists are able to recognize both spontaneous and created (i.e., internally and externally determined) patterns of order, and this opened my eyes to a far greater range of theories and models to deal with the data from such diverse fields as physiology, systematics, and ecology.

Creationism has certainly made the classroom a much more exciting place, both for me and my students. So much of biology touches on key ethical issues, such as genetic engineering, the ecological crisis, reproduction and development, and now I have so much more to offer than just my own opinions and the severely limited perspectives of other human authorities. And, of course, on the basic matter of origins, my students and I have the freedom to discuss both evolution and creation, a freedom tragically denied to most young people in our schools today.

Creationists have to pay the price of academic ridicule and occasional personal attacks, but these are nothing compared to the riches of knowledge and wisdom that are ours through Christ! I only wish that more scientists, science teachers, and science students could share the joy and challenge of looking at God's world through God's eyes.

* Dr. Gary E. Parker did his doctoral work in biology and geology. He is the author of five widely used programmed instruction books in biology.

http://www.icr.org/article/95/313/

Darwin's Conspiracy

Read about three fatal flaws that the evolution scientists have successfully covered up with the help of a worldwide Darwin conspiracy that actively suppresses the fact that Darwinism is not scientific but just an atheist doctrine in the weblink below.

http://darwinconspiracy.com/

Below are confessions from famous Evolutionists.
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

Look at Jesus walking on water
That defied all scientific theory. Or miracles of healing, a broken bone put together in a few seconds. that is not logical or scientific and doesn't make sense if you try to figure it out in your natural mind. If we could understand God and the way He works, He wouldn't be God. His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55). Even if we spend millions of years gfrappling and creating theories and doing thousands of scientific tests, God can just surprise us and change the whole world in a day. All our theories etc. are in my opinion a way of trying to imagine or believe pr convince people that God does not exist, or that He has no power.

Nosa 77:

Look at Jesus walking on water
That defied all scientific theory.

How do you know that he wasn't walking on strategically placed pebbles in the river? The whole scene could have been staged.

manmustwac:

How do you know that he wasn't walking on strategically placed pebbles in the river? The whole scene could have been staged.

That is IF it ever happened. Jesus walked on water, where is your evidence? the bible says so

if we don't believe that what the Bible says is true then there is no basis for any argument concerning creation or evolution.
i believe in the Bible because I believe not because i have a load of scientific facts to back up everything that happened. that is not possible, as i explained before God is God, not a man - his scope is far beyond what a man can reach or understand
Of couse if we don't believe the Bible is true, we will try and find our own explanation and theory to explain life
but the unanswered questions are still far more than the answered ones, and we cannot be so sure even of the answered ones,

I would rather believe in the holy bible rather than a science book for the simple fact that the bible makes more sense.
Try reading it from Genesis and you might actually notice that it's inspired by the Holy spirit, Oh I'm sorry do you know what that is?  Lips sealed

The reason you haven't seen any people being formed from dust is because after Adam, Eve was created from Adam's rib and those two started having kids as it still continues to happen today. Oh buy the way that is also written in the book of Genesis the kids were named Kain and Abel  Kiss

Too stupid for science ? Try religion

Creation or evolution, which one do i believe in? I believe in both because you cannot have one without the other. First one creates and then what is created evolves over time. Where is the arguement in this issue again, you silly people?

I hate to speak about religion but let's not try to impose our idea on others, for me creation is too fictional and evolution has its flaws;man must be foolish to have lost his root!

Hello,

Anyone who would like to exchange links, please contact me.

Thanks.
John

-----------------
My pages: page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4 and page 5

These are my favourite quotes:

If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.    Woody Allen

I have too much respect for the idea of God to make it responsible for such an absurd world.   Georges Duhamel

I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't.     Jules Renard