It’s amazing that something as frivolous as a comic strip can generate a passionate debate. If you’ve been following this blog, you know the Doonesbury strip of last week portrayed believers in the biblical account of creation as know-nothings. My thanks to Garry Trudeau for helping bring this issue before the voters, er, uh … Sorry, I got carried away there.
Anyhoo, three of our listeners out there—Alison, Sarah, and Jerry made comments that set the stage for further discussion. I thank them for their thoughts; I can tell that each spoke from the heart.
Alison wrote that she thinks “…evolution and belief in god (sic) can co-exist. Sarah said she agrees with Alison. Jerry says that he “… feel(s) that God’s creation story is not neutered by Darwin’s evolution facts or theories.” I’m sorry, Jerry, we’ll need a stronger authority than feelings. Alison gives as her authority: “I took MANY science classes that detailed the proof that it did, indeed occur.”
Well, that’s a start—but who taught these classes, and was the instructor merely stating his/her opinion? We’ll have to put the “feelings” arguments aside, and Alison’s classes, too, until she gives us more information. Why am I so arbitrary about this?
Go back to my Doonesbury Deception posting of 3 days ago. I note there is no evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. Time limits us to two reasons: 1) there are no transitional forms, although evolutionists have through the years provided fraudulent claims of “the missing link,” etc. Piltdown Man was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutang that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human. Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig’s tooth. That’s why it’s still called a theory, despite what Alison’s instructors told her. 2) It violates the Second Law (Law, not theory) of Thermodynamics.
I also mentioned that evolutionists don’t want alternative viewpoints presented in the classroom; otherwise, they would be expected to defend their theory. Sarah mentioned this in her comment: “Are you familiar with Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled? It takes on the unfortunate resistance of the scientific community to allow academics to bring up alternative viewpoints that call into question widely accepted scientific theories. Ultimately the documentary asks the larger question of why the scientific community would resist the asking of questions (which of course drives scientific discovery), but Stein focuses on the evolution vs intelligent design argument and handles it with a great deal of grace.”
Thank you, Sarah. But since you mentioned this, I’m puzzled that you agree with the idea that evolution and belief in God can co-exist. Perhaps I should be asking the question: If I say I believe in God, do I also have to believe the Bible? It would seem so, as the creation account (which conflicts with naturalism) is repeated throughout scripture; since scripture presents itself as the Word of God.
This may be at the root of our disagreement. I will tell you unequivocally that 1) I believe in God. But when you or I say that, we are saying many other things, too—essentially, as stated in the Christian creeds (e.g., Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, etc.).
Jim Noyes put it this way: Most … who criticize creationist theory, have never read the Bible one time. How can they call themselves “educated?” Check it out. Truth does not fear examination. Which is what Sarah suggests with the Ben Stein documentary. Which, BTW, is very well done.
What do you think about the Christian insistence that belief in God = acceptance of the Bible as God’s Word?