Weak Evolutionary Ground (Quick Sand) Part III
There are a number of surface issues that need to be hashed out with MisterE. To begin, I never claimed that Lee Strobel’s credibility (and yes he does have plenty) was a direct indication that creationism occurred; I simply used him as an example of a well-read and well-educated individual who had explored evolution extensively. Religious bias? Don’t you have a certain scientific inclination yourself? In the same terms you set for Strobel your own scientific meanderings make you just as “biased” as you claim Strobel is, but that’s not really all that important here; in reality, it’s a glaring point I’m not sure I needed to point out.
Basing my entire case for creationism on one individual would be unproductive. Yes, I believe this particular individual is credible and this credibility only adds to the evidence that supports creationism. And I never claimed that half of the population’s belief in creationism indicated indefinite truth. What I did say is that I’m not alone. It’s ironic. Everyone who has written against intelligent design has acted as though I’m in the minority, when in fact the nation is deeply divided – directly down the middle.
You claim that people are easily brainwashed – I assume this would mean anyone willing to accept the fact that God created human beings with a purpose – that we’re each designed with a specific plan in mind? I respect your opposition to such statements, but why can’t you see that scientists are equally “blinded?” If evolution was as logical as you claim it is, than why is it that over the past 30 years scientists have begun to question many of its components? And why, let me ask, is half of the population still in opposition to its tenants? You make it seem as though it’s simply silly not to embrace the concept; well, clearly it’s not. If it were so universal we’d all believe in it open-heartedly. I’ve repeated this numerous times. Take this for instance:
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blond forces worth speaking about in nature” – The late Sir Fred Hoyle (one of world’s most prominent astronomers) (Read the Case for Creation for more)
And I could not disagree with you more regarding micro and macro-evolution. You provided an interesting graphic, but I would urge you to step beyond graphics to concrete examples of animals that have gone through this macro-evolutionary process. Where are they? Where are the Geico cavemen I mention in the last post? Pick up Strobel (or any other creationists’ book) and you’ll be sure to find explanations to many of the structures and models that have been assembled to “prove” evolutionary theory correct.
And calling my beliefs “mystic” is not appropriate, nor is it accurate. These beliefs, lest I remind you for the fourth time, are embraced by a substantial portion of the population. In fact, I think it’s pretty mystical to believe in 11 dimensions, black holes and other phenomena. It’s ironic that many evolutionists assume that there is no God, since He cannot be “empirically proven,” yet these same individuals believe in scientific components that are also vastly impossible to verify. Oh, but let me guess: You have evidence?
I’ll leave you with this:
“It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out…The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design” – Paul Davies, former professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge University (Read the Case for Creation for more)