I have been enduring the mindless gibberish of a couple of my atheistic, evolutionary friends lately. They continue to visit my blog even though they are quite aware of the fact that I’m not about to give any credence to the theory of evolution. So, since our conversation has been taking place on a ‘back lot’ of my blog, I thought I’d put a few questions here on the main page for them to see. These are in no particular order of importance.
First, would you please interact with the essay by Freman Dyson that I posted earlier.
Second, (for Dan) why do you feel sorry for me? I’m the one with hope. I don’t really need your sympathy. Seriously, I’m not the one who is going to die someday and simply die. I’m already alive and will be long after you have ceased breathing.
Third, (for Dan) how does my use of particular inventions prove that we have ‘descended with modification’ from anything? What does my use of medicine or computers or running water for that matter have to do with proving anything evolves? All it tells me is that curious people have tinkered around with their environment and made some cool stuff that makes life slightly less complicated. (Although, I should also point out that science has given us nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, hazardous waste, cloning, and a hoste of other things that are in no way beneficial, or at least only moderately, superficially beneficial, to humans.)
Fourth, if evolution is so evident, why do so many people, including many, many scientists, reject it out of hand? And why do so many argue, much better than I (and with supporting, logical, factual evidence) that evolution is a fraud?
Fifth, if evolution is so evident, why have some scientists felt the need to perpetuate it, from time to time, with lies, fraudulent fossil ‘evidence,’ and other suspicious ‘evidence’?
Sixth, (for Dan) do you mean, with reference to heliocentrism, that the world does not revolve around you? Well, if that’s the case, then of course I believe in heliocentrism! (Oh, I’m just kidding. Of course the earth goes round the sun. Only really shallow people don’t believe that.) However, what does that have to do with proving evolution again? (Seriously, Dan and the rest of you evolutionists need to lighten up a bit. If you would learn how to laugh at yourselves you’d have a lot more fun blogging.)
Seventh, for all, I want all of you evolutionists who are so angry at people who believe in Genesis 1 (and all the other chapters and books of the Bible) to know this one thing: I’m not nearly as offended at your acceptance of something as ridiculous as evolution as I am at your rejection of Christ. (And please, all you ‘christian evolutionists’, spare me your drivel. I’ve already explained how I feel about that nonsense and if my point doesn’t stick, ask Richard Dawkins if you can be a Christian and an evolutionist. On this point, Dawkins and I are in complete agreement: there is no such thing.) But my point is this: Even though I don’t believe the two are compatible, I’d rather you believe it (evolution) and be a Christian than not be a Christian at all.
Eighth, now here’s where it gets rather technical. Michael Denton, certainly has not argued for a specific creationist point of view, and I don’t even know if he claims to be a Christian (I don’t think he is, and at any rate, I don’t believe that evolution and Christianity are at al compatible so even if he is a christian it is a ‘christian’. He doesn’t even argue that things are suited for specifically ‘our’ version of life, but rather what he calls an ‘advanced carbon-based humanlike or humanoid life.’ That’s encouraging.) Anyhow, he wrote a handsome volume called ‘Nature’s Destiny.’ I’d like to begin this inquiry by quoting from him and asking you to respond.
He writes, “There is simply no tolerance possible in the design of the celestian machine. For us to be here, it must be precisely as it is.” (14)
Denton also writes, “…both the Darwinian and the creationist worldviews are based on the same fundamental axion–that life is an unncessary and fundamentally contingent phenomenon. Where the creationist sees organism as the artifacts of God the supreme engineer, The Divine Watchmaker, Darwinists see them as the artifactual products of chance and selection.” (xviii)
OK, so I’d like to begin with how you would assess that statement. True or false. (PS–Denton has an earned Ph D in developmental biology from Kings College, London).
Well, that’s all for now friends. I appreciate your time and patience. I’m sorting through all of this. I’m trying hard to understand how I can be the product of a meaningless, random process and still have value, purpose, and a reason to wake up tomorrow. On the other hand, if I am created in the image of God…well, now that’s something else entirely and I’ll gladly wake up and enjoy each breath I take, and every fly that buzzes around my head, and every bee that crawls on my sunflowers. I might even enjoy my stupid dogs.
To end my thoughts, I’d like to post a passage from the Scripture that is simply amazing: