Today’s links of the day comes from one of my favorite periodicals, Scientific American. They are not religious in nature or bias (not that bias is a bad thing, everything has a color), but touch on Christian issues.
- Special Report: Has James Cameron Found Jesus’s Tomb or Is It Just a Statistical Error? Short version: He hasn’t.
- 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense Short version: “Debunking” evolution is not nearly as easy as you might think.
2 Comments
I find it interesting how in the second article any question that has to do with Origin, or actually seeing macroevolution happen, he cannot show it happen. Which is a direct contradiction to the quote I show from his article above. He throws out creationists not because they are scientifically wrong, but because they believe there is more to the universe than natural forces.
But, there are observed cases of microevolution and a clear development in the fossil record. That fits your observed criterion. It is really hard to test a process that takes thousands of years to happen, so computer models can stand in their stead. Take the Avadia program. They modeled the behavior of simple organisms and the observations of that test matched the theory of evolution quote well. (See Discover Magazine - Zimmer, Carl. “Testing Darwin”. May 1,2005)
The Earth seems old and there seems to be a progression in the fossil record. One needs to be able to explain that. I opt for theistic evolution, it seems to fit the facts the best.
You are correct that they can’t explain the origins of life. They admit that in one of their answers. I play the God-of-the-gaps card here. I don’t like to play it, because all the time people are showing how the gaps aren’t really there.
It is not just that the creationists are theists that the author throws them out. They also do bad science. I think it is possible to do good science and still be a Bible believing Christian. One might have to reformulate some doctrines, but hey, if they explain reality better, why not?