Thursday, March 29, 2007

The Science of Theory - Evolution

I heard on the radio that there was a new study that showed the relatives of of Fred and Wilma's pet Dino, did not produce any known evolutionary predecessors. I just have to say "WELL DUH!" As a Christian I believe in creation, however; it doesn't need to be taken on blind faith. It is a fact that Darwin himself was not convinced that his theory was in any way accurate.

The new study went on to say it appears that only mammals after the age of Dino may have produced some of the variations in species that are with us now. They just won't give up their theory because it has not yet been disproved. It is a fact, that it also has in no way been proved. However; the "transitional" species in my view are just another species. If they weren't, why can't we simply unearth a few more transitional species to complete the chain? After all, we have some 65 million years of evolution right under our feet, don't we? Every mutation should be in the fossil record.

Here is a classic example of the Darwin's theory gone awry. The ceolocanth; extraordinarily unique in the animal kingdom-- its fossil remains shrouded in popular imagination (Darwin's Theory), the 400 million year old "living fossil"was the classic "missing link". The probelm with the scientific date? The ceolocanth was "discovered" alive and well in 1938!

Pardon me for my drub of these so called scientists while I continue to sing my melody-less dirge. I would like to agree that something here might make sense to the searching of the human mind and spirit. I thought the fruit fly experiments in high school and the study of Schleiden & Schwann would be enough to convince me. I guess what I find most amazing is that the debate never includes a supernatural God. It only includes facts and theoretical facts; an oxymoron, which in turn, produces the entire conundrum in the first place. If God is not supernatural, then there isn't a God. How could there be? If there is a God, why can't He make 2 million plus species not including ones that are extinct? Honestly, how are they ever going to make the fossil record support this theory? There would need to be hundreds, if not thousands of fossil species. Without cloning and genetic engineering, I can't see how this could have happened by chance... much less starting with the dust of the earth!

Let's face it, Biblical Christianity is under attack. And possibly for good reason. We have not been taught much in the way of scientific thinking to support our beloved, "God said it, I believe it, theology." For sure there are some things that are not easily explained, this just isn't one of them.

So, you think God is a theory? Then tell me where the end of the universe is. When you have that down, then tell me what's on the other side of the end? It doesn't necessarily prove that He exists, but it is a good start. As a Christian I have to take a stand. I think the blogger JAlex137 said it just the way I would.

"I reject evolution because it opposes both the direct teaching of the Bible on origins, and because it undercuts the foundation of Christianity, that one man (Adam) brought sin into the world, and death by sin, and one Man (Jesus Christ) has conquered sin and death (Romans 5:12-19). Evolution proposes many years of death, disease, suffering and bloodshed before anyone who could remotely pass for Adam came on the scene. And God called all this "very good"? There is no need to atone for that which is very good.

Secondarily, I reject the notion that evolution is established fact. Let's face it, it's not empirical science, it's forensic science. If I accept the Bible explanation of our origins for my starting assumptions, I can develop an origins model as consistent with, if not more consistent with, empirical science than the evolution model which has different, equally untestable starting assumptions."

For an ridiculous but opposing view click HERE.

No comments:

Related Posts with Thumbnails