A disembodied Response
This entry is in response to a post and comments on the blog of Katie Ferguson. If it doesn't make any sense but you really want it to, you can read up at Katie's: http://marriage.analogcafe.net/katie_main.html
I'm going to open my mouth on three subjects I've thought about on this issue:
First of all: Science and religion cannot be mutually exclusive, because science is founded on philosophy. In other words, science is founded on a belief that the observations of our eyes and the process of thinking are more or less accurate and can discern fact. Thus, any true scientist begins with the belief that humans are intelligent creatures that have the ability to discover truth. Not all religions agree with this. So science falls under one type of philosophy and religion.
Second of all: Genesis says we have been made in God’s image, true, but so does James 3:9—“ With it we bless {our} Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God.” Even if one does not take the Bible quite literally, the gist is that mankind is different than animals. To only believe in some things the Bible says puts the reader above the message. Who are we to pick and choose, when the Bible clears claims of itself that it is God-breathed? It seems that we have to take all of it, or none of it.
Third of all: there is much scientific evidence against evolution. Scientists tend to keep this information on the downlow for several reasons. One being that evolution agrees with their belief system (philosophy, religion) and they are reluctant to challenge it. Another being that is not PR to question evolution in many circles these days.
Briefly, scientists have tried to recreate macro-evolution (change between species) on creatures (flies for example) with very short lives, and found that once they have mutated to a point they simply were unable to exist.
We have no proof of any animal changing species. Only conjectures with ancient bones.
Carbon-dating is often cited to determine the age of fossils. However, research shows that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has not stabilized yet. This ratio is the foundation of carbon-dating. It was calculated to stabilize when the earth was 30,000 years old, and scientists assumed that the earth was millions of years old. However, this find presumably dates the earth as younger than 30,000.
Another thing cited to date the earth as billions of years old is layers of soil, but when Mt. St. Helens exploded, we found out that this appearance can be produced very quickly!
Not to mention that the probability of macro-evolution is ridiculously low. I don’t remember the numbers, but they are far below what staticians state as “impossible”. This is because there are pieces in a cell which are mutually independent. So a single cell could not have formed gradually, but only all at once.
And scientists say life originated at the bottom of the sea, which is exactly where the force of water would pull it all apart… they say a cell could only come together without oxygen present, but oxygen is in the basic chemical composition of water…
The only way someone could believe in evolution in the face of the evidence is a faith as strong as any mystic’s.
Anyway:) This is one of my old favorite topics. The evidence I have read and heard, scientifically, strongly points to Creationism. No, I’m not a science major, but I am informed. And my roommate Raeleen is an Anthropology minor; she hasn’t heard anything convincing about Evolution yet either.
