Evolution Cartoon of the Day

Seen on Facebook:

Evolution Cartoon of the Day

Seen on Facebook:

Evolution Cartoon of the Day

Seen on Facebook:

It's Not the Economy, It's Creationism!

That seems to be the playbook that's being put together by the left.  They're going to ignore the economic issues affecting the country and instead try and scare voters by painting Republican candidates as religious nuts (from Byron York):

The fundamental facts of the presidential race at this moment are that unemployment is high, the economy is by far the most important issue to American voters, and President Obama's handling of economic questions is overwhelmingly unpopular. Republican presidential hopefuls Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and others are hammering the president daily on matters of job creation and economic growth.

Now some of Obama's activist allies and supporters in the press are engaged in a sharply focused effort to change the subject. Even as economic anxieties continue to rise, some of the nation's premier political journalists are consumed with the alleged influences of obscure religious philosophers on Republican candidates; on questions of creationism, evolution, and the age of the Earth; and on the fantasy that a Republican president might transform the United States into an Iranian-style theocracy.

For example, the Daily Beast/Newsweek recently published an article titled "A Christian Plot for Domination?" claiming that Perry and Bachmann are "deeply associated with a theocratic strain of Christian fundamentalism" known as Dominionism. A widely discussed article in the Texas Observer claimed that Dominionists -- a "little-known movement of radical Christians" -- are readying an "army of God" to "commandeer civilian government," with Perry the "vessel" for their ambitions. Finally, the New Yorker published a long article claiming that Bachmann believes "Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns."

Surveying those articles, the executive editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller, concludes that "an unusually large number" of Republican candidates "belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans." Perry and Bachmann, in particular, are connected to "fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity," which Keller says "has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction." Fearing that Perry or Bachmann could be a "Trojan horse" for a religious takeover of the government, Keller advocates strict questioning of candidates on doctrinal issues.

Put aside whether there is some bias against Christianity in these baseless charges, or whether liberals are proposing the kind of religious test for office that the Founders explicitly rejected. It has often been remarked that, given today's terrible economy, Barack Obama cannot run in 2012 on the theme of hope, as he did in 2008. With his record, he'll have to run on fear -- that is, on convincing voters that Republicans are just too scary to elect.

Read the rest of it here.

Science Quote of the Day

From Ann Coulter, in a column on Darwinian evolution:

The (extremely generous) test Darwin set for his theory was this: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin's day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.

Read the whole thing. It's funny, but also contains a serious debunking of Darwinian evolution.

New Hampshire Liberal Mom Outwitted by Rick Perry

Nice try lady, but you'll have to come up with something better next time:

The battle between supporters of creationism and evolution made its way onto the 2012 campaign trail Thursday as a young boy, prompted by his mother, asked Texas Gov. Rick Perry questions on the subject, leading Perry to suggest both are taught in Texas public schools.

"How old do I think the Earth is?" Perry said repeating the boy's question. "I have no idea - it's pretty old. It goes back a long way - I'm not sure anyone knows really completely know how old it is."

But Perry continued, saying the boy's mother was really trying to get a response about creationism and evolution. While Texas public schools don't officially teach creationism, some claim Perry has pushed a weakened evolution curriculum to open the door for creationism in schools.

"I know your mom is asking about evolution," he said. "It's a theory that's out there and it's got some gaps in it. In Texas, we teach creationism and evolution because I feel you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."...

Though the New Hampshire boy's mother prodded him to further question Perry about "why he doesn't believe in science," many in the crowd moved on to criticize Perry's positions on entitlement reforms, chanting "hands off our benefits!"

This idiot woman was trying to get Perry to say that the Earth is 6,000 years old and Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs for fun. Perry's not going to fall into that trap.

She treated her son like a dummy, and growing up with her a dummy is probably what he'll be.

I'd like to offer some advice to all the presidential candidates. When someone asks a loaded question like that, the first thing you should ask yourself is if that question has anything to do with being president. In this case the response would have been simple: "Since the president has no power to decide whether the earth was created or evolved on its own, I'll leave that up to someone else to figure out. I'm going to concentrate on the things the president CAN decide."

I don't know for sure, but I would guess that Rick Perry's thoughts on creation and evolution are much like my own. I detailed all that back in a 2007 post which you can read here.

Can Science and Creationism Coexist?

I've said all along they can and Oxford Math Professor John Lennox echoes my previously expressed thoughts on the subject in a new book called Seven Days That Divide the World (from The Christian Post):

In his book, Lennox first suggests that Genesis teaches readers the possibility that the seven days are suggestive of a more complex process.

"Jesus told parables about farming, building and fishing, not about factories, aviation and jungle exploration ... His parables are accessible to anyone in any age," he explains. "Similarly with Genesis."

He continues, "If the biblical explanations were at the level, say, of twenty-second century science, it would likely be unintelligible to everyone, including scientists today. This could scarcely have been God's intention. He wished His meaning to be accessible to all."

Lennox then considers the writings of Old Testament scholars such as John Walton and the late Frank Derek Kidner to express the possibility that the seven days of creation were written as a framework that "might then indicate that there is more to the text than ordered sequence."

Analyzing the grammar of Genesis 1:1, Lennox also suggests "that 'the beginning' of Genesis 1:1 did not necessarily take place in day one as is frequently assumed. The initial creation took place before day 1."

A delayed beginning separate from God's day one separation of the light from the darkness gives readers pause to believe that the earth may have been created long before He began the literal seven, 24-hour days of creation. It also gives the reader pause to further explore the scientific makings of the earth and the universe.

Lennox does not find pause for evolution, however.

He writes that verses from Genesis chapters one and two – "Let the earth sprout vegetation;" "Let the earth bring forth living creatures;" "The Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground" – affirm that humans have a shared chemistry with animals and plants.

However, he states, "Genesis seems to go out of its way to imply a direct special creation act [to make man], rather than suggesting that humans arose, either by natural processes or ... out of preexisting hominids."

You can read the rest at this link. My previous post on the subject of evolution/creation is here.  We differ a bit on the concept of a literal seven day creation, but agree that the ancient geological formations could be consistent within Biblical creationism.

The Bible Becomes a Campaign Issue

Only in the South...:

A mysterious ad that accuses a candidate for governor in Alabama of supporting the theory of evolution and questioning the Bible has triggered a dizzying and nasty shouting match in the state's hotly contested Republican primary race.

The ad -- part of a campaign against Republican candidate Bradley Byrne by a group called the True Republican PAC -- questions Byrne's faith and accuses him of being a "liberal."

Noting that Byrne was elected to the state school board as a Democrat in the 1990s, the ad's narrator says in a quizzical voice:

"On the school board, Byrne supported teaching evolution, said evolution best explains the origin of life -- even recently said the Bible is only partially true." Another voice closes the ad by saying Byrne is "trying to look conservative."

That and other ads triggered an all-hands-on-deck response from the Byrne campaign, which launched a "truth team" website, issued a series of statements denying the group's charges, accused a GOP opponent and Democratic operatives of being in cahoots against him, and launched an ad of its own. The campaign also released a lengthy statement calling the faith ad "despicable."

In the statement, Byrne said he believes "every single word" in the Bible is true and that, to the contrary, he fought to get creationism taught in Alabama's schools.

Byrne campaign spokeswoman Marty Sullivan said the ad's creators took local newspaper quotes out of context in leveling the claims about the candidate's faith. She said Byrne's longstanding position is that both creationism and evolution should be taught in schools.

"Bradley's faith is very important to him and this has been very painful to him to have this kind of attack launched on him," Sullivan told FoxNews.com. "There's nothing about it that's even remotely true."

In the country today there's probably only three or four states where this could possibly be a campaign issue. In most states they'd laugh at an argument over the truthfulness of the Bible or whether evolution is appropriate curriculum for schools.

Human Evolution Headline of the Day

From The Christian Science Monitor:

Cavemen among us: Some humans are 4 percent Neanderthal

And I swear they all shop at Wal-Mart. Whenever I go there I see anatomical wonders, hair styles, and clothing choices that I never see anywhere else.

Monkey-to-Man? Maybe Not.

Hmm, this is interesting:

The first major analysis of one of the earliest known hominids suggests that humans may not have evolved from apes. In fact, the reverse could be true: Apes might have evolved from the hominids that eventually evolved into humans.

“This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution,” said David Pilbeam, curator of paleoanthropology at Harvard’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

The analysis of Ardipithecus ramidus, or Ardi, a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia, extends the story of humankind: The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor.

An analysis of the 125 fossils that made up her skeleton, discovered in 1994, revealed she had many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, for instance, an ability to walk upright on two legs - leading to the conclusion that apes evolved extensively since we shared a common ancestor.

The research is being published in a special edition of the journal Science.

I recently put some of my own thoughts on the evolution/creation argument in a post here. The whole monkey-to-man thing never made sense to me.

Evolution Headline of the Day

From the LA Times:

Dung beetle named for Charles Darwin

Seems about right.

Put Me Down as In Favor of Separation of Church and Zoo

This seems kind of dumb:

A mayoral candidate in Tulsa, Okla., is reportedly putting a Christian creationism exhibit in the Tulsa Zoo among her top priorities, along with addressing crime and budget issues.

Republican Anna Falling says the people of Tulsa must recognize that God needs to be honored in the city, Tulsa World reported.

"If we can't come to the foundation of faith in this community, those other answers will never come," she told the paper.

As part of that effort, Falling has resurrected a failed push for an exhibit at the Tulsa Zoo that would tell the Genesis story of God creating the world in six days and resting on the seventh, originally proposed by Christian activist Dan Hicks in 2005, Tulsa World reported.

"Installation of this exhibit at the Tulsa Zoo was raised in 2005, discussed, vetted and resolved in a very public process involving the entire community," Zoo officials said in a prepared statement, "A public vote four years ago by the Parks Board resolved the issue."

The zoo currently has a display of the earth's creation from a scientific point of view and an elephant-like statue said to represent the Hindu god Ganesha, Tulsa World reported.

Falling, a former city councilor and founder of several Christian non-profit groups, also stressed the need to reserve leadership positions for those who will "honor God," the paper reported.

Can't we just go to the zoo and look at the animals?

Although I'm a Christian my own views on creation differ somewhat from the more fundamental beliefs such as what they're promoting in Tulsa.

I was attending a mid-week Bible study one time and the pastor opened the floor to questions about anything that was on people's minds. A woman asked how dinosaurs fit in to the whole six day creation theory. The pastor's explanation of how dinosaurs co-existed with man was so tortured as to be mockable. He was a smart guy but it took a lot more than faith to believe the tale he was telling.

I'm definitely not a "monkey-to-man" evolutionist, but at the same time I have difficulty with the concept of a strict six 24-hour day creation given the ample geological evidence that the earth is far older than the 5,000 years the strict creationists believe. There is a happy medium and that's pretty much where I come down.

The happy medium says that there is a God who set the whole of creation in motion, and the complexity and diversity we see today just couldn't happen by chance. The one big variable is that nobody knows for sure how long God's "day" was. Certainly he could have kicked everything off in short order, but based on evidence we can see in the geological and fossil record I tend to believe those days could have lasted millions of years as things developed. Moses, who wrote the creation story down, was certainly not a scientist or have a basis to understand the concepts involved in the development of the universe over millions or billions of years. He wrote it the way he understood it.

Of course, we could all be wrong. Hopefully someday He'll explain it all to us. In the meantime, let's just go to the zoo and look at the animals.

Only 39% Believe in Evolution

I'm kind of surprised the number is that low:

A new poll released just in time for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday found only 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution" and just 24 percent of those who attend church weekly believe in the explanation for the origin of life.

The Gallup survey, released Wednesday, found a quarter of those polled do not believe in evolution, and 36 percent say they don't have an opinion either way.

The poll of 1,018 American adults, found strong ties between education level and belief in the theory.

"Among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin's theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it," Gallup found. "For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief."

I've opined on this subject before and I'll let you read my thoughts on the subject here. I come down somewhere between strict Darwinian evolution and strict 6 day/5,000 year old Earth creationism.

10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design

My friend Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has a three part post on the 10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design. After having just seen Ben Stein's movied Expelled (my review here), this is a good companion piece. Here are the links:

10 Ways - Part 1

10 Ways - Part 2

10 Ways - Part 3

For extra entertainment, read the first comment in Part 1. It's typical of the reaction of the anti-ID folks that I've seen on my blog whenever I post on the subject. Those who don't buy the possibility that Darwin doesn't have it completely correct are judged "retarded" or "ignorant". Joe addresses that issue in one of his later points.

Expelled - A Review

The Mrs. and I just went to see Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It's a very good film and I highly recommend it. It will make you think.

I'm sure many people, hearing that the movie is about evolution vs. intelligent design, would assume this is a film with a religious theme, or even a Christian theme. Not at all. Ben Stein is Jewish and many of the intelligent design proponents he talks to are not Christian and in many cases are not particularly religious at all. The movie is not about religion, but about academic freedom. Proponents of the theory of Darwinian evolution hold the most powerful positions in both academic and government science and, as evidence by the film, will not tolerate any theory that has intelligent design as a component.

I've noted in some other commentary I've read that the movie has been described as "anti-evolution". Not true. The movie acknowledges changes over time within species, which is part of Darwinian evolution. It just doesn't buy the theory that evolution is responsible for everything.

When many people hear the words "intelligent design" (ID) they immediately leap to creationism or the most fundamentalist form of Biblical creation, and that's not accurate at all. ID does not promote a 6,000 year old Earth, a 6 literal 24-hour day creation, or dinosaurs coexisting with man. It simply says that you can't create that first self-replicating molecule and get to the diversity we see today simply through Darwinian evolution. There must have been some sort of intelligence involved.


There's a recurring theme throughout the movie involving the Berlin Wall. That wall was erected to try and prevent a failing philosophy from being exposed, through freedom, to contrasting views. Stein argues that such a wall is now in place in the scientific community such that only ideas consistent with Darwinian evolution have the freedom of research and thought, while anything dealing with ID must be kept out. There is no academic freedom to pursue ideas that might involve intelligent creation. His analogy doesn't seem too far off the mark after you've watched the film.

In the movie Stein interviews a number of prominent scientists whose careers have been destroyed or severely damaged because they dared to suggest that ID could have played a role in the process of getting the earth from a lifeless void to the vast diversity we see today. There are organizations who sole focus in life is to stomp out the teaching of ID in any form and punish those who transgress. They're almost a modern day thought police.

Of course, the biggest threat to Darwinian evolution is God. Those who most fully embrace this theory must eventually eliminate any form of God because God is incompatible with a view that life spontaneously started and is completely random in nature. Several of the most ardent evolutionists included in the film are strident atheists.

The problem with eliminating God, of course, is that you also eliminate a purpose for existing, the concept of morality and good and evil, a promise of life after death, and even free will. If we simply show up on the scene one day and then some years later cease to exist in any form, why should it matter what we do while we're here? Things like abortion, euthanasia and eugenics become acceptable because there is no true right or wrong. I don't think fervent atheists like Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, or Christopher Hitchens would want to live in a world where their ideal of a godless society was fully implemented. After all, they might not have made the cut and could have been eliminated early on. (I doubt that they would accept that last sentence as even possible since they clearly believe they're smarter than all the rest of us.)

Speaking of Dawkins, there was a very interesting moment toward the end of the film when Ben Stein sits down for an interview. Stein asks in several different ways if Dawkins believes in any form of God at all, and of course, Dawkins replies with incredulity that such a question could even be asked of him. Stein also asks him if evolution is absolute fact, how did the whole thing get started on this planet? Dawkins doesn't have an answer (nobody does), but suggests that science knows the processes that must happen, but not how they happened. Stein then asks if Dawkins could envision any scenario under which some sort of intelligence could have played a part in the initial process that created life on Earth. To my (and Stein's) amazement Dawkins proceeds to lay out one scenario he could possibly accept in which a life form from another planet, far more advanced than ours, could have come here and "seeded" this planet, and from those seeds sprang forth what we see today. In other words, space aliens.

Isn't it interesting that Dawkins doesn't have any room in his intellect for any form of God, but can find room for space aliens.

As he was making this explanation, I leaned over to my wife and asked the obvious question - where did they come from? To follow the theory acceptable to Dawkins you'd have to believe that all creation is just like one of those Russian stacking dolls with Earth and its creatures as the tiny doll in the middle. That still doesn't answer the real question which is - who built the big doll on the outside?

Whether you believe in a 6,000-year old earth, a 6 billion-year old earth, monkey-to-man evolution, or really don't care one way or the other, you should go see this movie if for nothing else to understand the scientific Berlin Wall that has been put up to keep certain ideas out, and the various institutions that try to enforce a strict compliance to Darwin's theory. Science should be about exploration and investigation and following the facts wherever they lead without precondition. It should not start with a premise and require all facts to fit that premise.

As I was driving home it occurred to me that Stein could just as easily have made this movie about global warming, because we see many of the same treatments being given to those who stray from the politically acceptable view that humans are causing warming and humans can do something to stop it. Such noted scientists as Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi tell us that the "science is settled" and there's no room for opposing views. A meteorologist at the Weather Channel wants to strip other meteorologists of their accreditation if they refuse to embrace her form of global warming.

Even more pernicious is the notion that though we can't prove global warming is caused by man, it's too important not to start destroying our economy now in order to "save the planet". That, of course, requires a tremendous amount of arrogance on the part of the true believers like Gore who think they actually have dominion over the earth and its climate.

There are even more politics involved today in global warming than in ID, though fortunately there are still lots of dissenting voices that have avenues to be heard. Because there's not such a religious element to global warming I don't think those are seeking to stifle all dissent can ever be completely successful.

Well, let me correct something, there is a religious element to global warming, but not on the side of the deniers. For the true believers global warming has become a religion of its own, but one with the blessing of political correctness.

Getting back to the movie, I encourage you to go see it. There has been a tremendous outcry already against the film, including lawsuits to try and stop its showing and protests at earlier screenings. The crowd we saw it with obviously enjoyed it and clapped at the end (which doesn't always happen at the movies). You should see it while you can.

By the way, be sure to read Darwinism's Day is Done, a good companion piece to the movie.

=====

Some further thoughts: After thinking about the movie overnight I couldn't help but feel sorry for Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers, two of the main characters in the film and both staunch atheists who believe that science should replace any form of faith. Both of these guys demonstrate a stubborn disbelief in a higher intelligence than their own, and that seems like a pretty dangerous way to live.

I've heard religion referred to as "fire insurance", and for some, maybe it is. But think about it for a moment. If you live your life as though there is a God, what is the downside? If you're wrong, you just disappear upon death and can't even regret your decision. The upside of that is at least you've lived your life in a way that probably reduced the number of dumb or dangerous decisions you might have made and hopefully you've been a good citizen to your fellow humans. If it turns out there is a God, well, the upside to that is pretty big.

On the other hand you have the arrogant atheists who have chosen to live their lives as if there is no God. If they're right, when their time is done they just disappear with everyone else, though you have to wonder if they've had lived in a manner that brought them any real satisfaction along the way. However, if they're wrong about God and when their lights go out the Big Guy is suddenly there to greet them, the downside is huge. Do you think God will be impressed with their intellectual arguments?

It seems to me that if logic is what they're going for, based on the potential outcomes upon their death it would make more sense to live as though there is a God rather than live as though there isn't. Wouldn't that be "intelligent"?

Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

UPDATE: My review of the movie can be found here.

A controversial new movie is coming out this weekend - Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which deals with the issue of the teaching of evolution to the exclusion of everything else in our public schools. It's got the liberal establishment, and especially the atheists all riled up. Here are some one-liner reviews:

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING:

"I recommend EXPELLED enthusiastically!"
- James C. Dobson, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board, Focus on the Family

"Four stars!" - Ted Baehr, Editor, MovieGuide

"A powerful and riveting film… every open-minded person will love it."
- Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, Founder & Chairman of American Family Association

"EXPELLED is an enormously important project."
- Michael Medved, national radio host

"We highly recommend EXPELLED to anybody."
- Ken Smitherman, President, Association of Christian Schools International

"SEE THIS FILM, bring your friends and bring your church."
- Lee Strobel, Author, Case for a Creator

"See EXPELLED and you'll understand why they want to censor those who question their dogmas." - Dr. Richard Land, Southern Baptist Convention

"Those who are suppressing belief in God and trying to make materialism the law of the land should beware. Ben Stein is on a mission to stop the suppression, and millions of Americans are behind him."
- Pat Robertson, Host, 700 Club

"In EXPELLED, Ben Stein shows us what happens when academic freedom takes a day off. We should all be listening."
- Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus

"EXPELLED is both an eye-opening documentary and riotous entertainment." - Joseph Farah, CEO, WorldNetDaily.com

"This movie may trigger a cultural revolution."
- Dennis Wagner, Executive Director, Access Research Network

"EXPELLED could easily be one of the most important movies of the year."
- Denny Rydberg, President, Young Life

"EXPELLED is earthshaking. I was absolutely blown away. Everyone in America, even skeptics of Intelligent Design, must see this film."
- J. Matt Barber, Director for Cultural Issues, Concerned Women for America

"A cultural earthquake... Everyone I talked to after the screening used words like 'fabulous' and 'incredible'." - Dr. Tom Woodward, Director, C.S. Lewis Society

"A solid case for giving the theory of Intelligent Design a respected place in the classroom alongside Darwin's theory of Evolution."
- Dick Rolfe, Co-Founder and CEO, The Dove Foundation

I'm going to try and get out to see it as soon as I can. I like Ben Stein, and I posted a previous item by Stein on why he thinks Darwinism's day is done. It's good reading in advance of seeing the movie.

The Great Evolution Debate

The lefties are chuckling over the various Republican candidates who have publicly stated they they don't believe the theory of evolution, including Ron Paul whose admission of doubt was made public yesterday. Somehow, this has become a campaign issue. If you don't fully embrace Darwinian evolution, which even it's proponents have to admit is a theory since it can't be proven, you're a science-denier and some kind of hillbilly redneck who probably also believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

I've commented on this debate in the past but think it's time to expound a little bit on the whole evolution debate. Part of the problem comes from the way the terms are defined. Here's how evolution and creationism are defined in the current political context:

• Evolution - everything that exists today happened by accident. You exist because of random events that occurred billions of years ago that resulted over time in various species that eventually led to humans and to you. That's just the way the molecules bounced. Congratulations, you're the pinnacle of evolution to date.


• Creation - God spoke the whole into existence approximately 6,000 years ago and everything that is and was was created in six literal 24 hour days. What exists today exists pretty much as it was created since such a relatively short time has passed. Most of the geological features that point to an old earth, like the Grand Canyon, were created in Noah's flood.

I'm not actually sure which theory takes more faith. There's not a lot of middle ground between those two points of opinion. Part of the problem in the political context is that candidates are not given the chance to offer any explanations. It's "raise your hand if you don't believe in evolution" and that's it. According to the press and the elitists you're either smart (evolution) or dumb as a box of rocks (creation).
Now let's look at the problems inherent with both positions. First, evolution:

• What are the chances that a couple of atoms banging together could have given rise to everything we see today? The diversity and complexity of life on this planet is truly amazing, and if it could happen here, where else did it happen? And where are all the intermediate species that must have occurred between monkey and man? Anthropologists have occasionally found ancient specimens of hominid-looking critters, but certainly not enough of them to convince me that there's a seamless line in the flow of evolution. Just because there are similarities between simian and man doesn't mean they're relatives.


• Secondly, if Darwinian evolution is absolute truth and God is not involved, your life has no meaning or purpose whatsoever. You're just the result of random chance and accidents and there's absolutely no reason for you to be here. How's that make you feel? That would really take the starch out of Rick Warren's book sales.

And now, creation (as defined above):

• There's ample geological evidence to indicate that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. It's just hard to twist science and observation around enough to make that young-earth age work.


• The Genesis story was supposedly written down by Moses and inspired by God. Given what he had to work with, who's to say that perhaps God chose to use terms (such as "day") that Moses and his people could understand when he described the creation, rather than a literal meaning of the word "day". To God, a "day" could really have been millions of years, but in order to keep the story understandable to the population to whom it was intended, God may have simplified it a bit. I don't think that an unreasonable theory. Jesus was known to use parables to make his teachings easier for His audience to understand. Maybe He learned that from his Dad.

There's one other issue with creation, and it's the one that got me thinking. One Wednesday night I was at a church service when the pastor decided to take questions from the congregation from those who wanted information about the Bible. One person asked about how dinosaurs fit into the creation story. The pastor tried to explain how dinosaurs were created at the same time as everything else (during the 6 days) and coexisted with man for a period of time. I had a hard time keeping from laughing as this pastor struggled to make the ridiculous sound reasonable. At that point I began to consider the possibility of sort of a hybrid solution.
What if there was both creation and evolution? What if there is a God who sparked the whole thing into existence, and created the complexity and diversity we see today, but did it over billions of years? That could certainly explain the changes in various species that has been documented by researchers, and would give time for the dinosaurs to have come and gone well before man came on the scene. It would also explain the geologic evidence that points to an earth that has billions of candles on its birthday cake.
Micro-evolution is evident in nearly every species which has adapted certain traits, coloring or other characteristics to its unique environment. There's nothing non-Biblical about observing and recognizing those changes for what they are. As far as that goes, Darwin and his "survival of the fittest" theory is probably correct to a degree. I just can't take the huge leap to assume that everything came from some random ooze one day.
I, for one, don't buy the idea of monkey-to-man evolution. I do believe that God created man pretty much as we know him today, though there has certainly been some micro-evolution within the species as with other species. However, the ultimate ancestor of man is God, not some monkey somewhere. If that makes me a science-denier, all I ask is you prove that your ancestor was an ape and I'll quit denying (and a striking resemblance is not sufficient proof).
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what any of us think because none of us can change it and I'm sure God gets a good laugh out of the self-righteous on both sides of the argument. I figure I'll ask Him about it when I see Him.