Thursday, June 11, 2009

Seven Signs of Evolution Refuted - Part 5

Sign #5 is “Toxic toad evolves longer legs”

A toxic toad, introduced in 1936 to wipe out a beetle species wreaking havoc on Australia’s sugar cane crop, has become an uncontrollable pest itself, evolving longer legs to help it hop across the country at an ever-increasing clip. For their first 20 years or so in the country, they spread at a pace of 6 miles per year. They now cruise at about 30 miles per year. Why? Researchers found that the toads leading the cross-country march had legs that were 6 percent longer than those of the stragglers. The added length gives more speed, which permits the long-legged toads to secure the best habitat at the newly conquered terrain.

A toad with longer legs is just a toad. It is not evolution—I.e, a process of unlimited change, with the capacity for adding lots of new information (and thus potentially turning a toad into something radically different in time). It’s clear that all that is happening is a simple genetic shift in the proportion of a population having a particular characteristic that already exists in that population—in this case, long legs. The genetic information for long-leggedness has not appeared out of nowhere (i.e. evolved) but is part of the variation built into the toad kind at Creation.

Such simple shifting of relative gene frequencies can go either way. A year after the invasion front arrived at their research site near the city of Darwin, researchers found that the average fell back to 40% of body length, as the shorter-legged toads caught up.

A long-legged toad is still an amphibian and is not evolving into something else, such as a reptile, as the evolutionists claim happened in the past. Think of the fundamental design changes needed to transform an amphibian into a reptile. For example, toads grow from tadpoles whereas lizards hatch straight from eggs. A toad with longer legs is no closer to becoming a new species than a human with longer arms. The remarkable life cycle of the toad is an example of intelligent design and points to creation.

Source: Creation Ministries

< Part 4 | Part 6 >


  1. "It’s clear that all that is happening is a simple genetic shift in the proportion of a population having a particular characteristic that already exists in that population—in this case, long legs.:The genetic information for long-leggedness has not appeared out of nowhere "

    So what did you think evolution was? That sounds like evolution to me. Random variations of preexisting traits that can be inherited. Producing more offspring than are able to survive. Culling out the variations that do not increase fitness in the environment. Why did you think this is not evolution?

  2. No Olorin what you have described is the process of natural selection which is not in dispute. Christians hold that God placed certain biological systems in place to allow animal kinds to respond to their environment. Evolution requires that there be limitless change to produce radically new animal kinds.

    These Toads were not as the article suggests a sign of evolution but rather a sign of natural selection which is completely different.

    The point of difference is that you (I'm assuming you are evolutionary in your understanding of science) look at this and say "it must continue to produce new kinds of animal". Whereas others like me would be equally justified on just this evidence to say "it wont go any further than non-radical changes to a kind of animal". You have accepted that the world has come from material causes and this colours your perspective. I have accepted that the world comes from a non-material Source and this colours my perspective.

    What each of us have assumed produces the different interpretations not the evidence per se. Which of the two assumptions fits better with reality is the better question really.

  3. No, David, I think only your view is colored and I'm glad you admit that. You assume that evolution discounts the possibility of God, or specifically your view of God. As such you have assumed that Olorin's acceptance of evolution means he has "accepted that the world has come from material causes." Olorin never gives any indication that he's a materialist - and even if he is, you're the one assuming.

    Anyway, this section of your borrowed article (and the article as a whole) has a completely incorrect understanding of evolution. It's not surprising then that when you have an inaccurate model of evolution you can easily refute it - it's called a "straw man" argument. I'll try to correct this, although I fear you're a lost cause.

    First, evolution is a process that results from a combination of mutation and natural selection. Mutations occur at the level of an animal's DNA. Quite often these mutations are either detrimental or fatal. One common mutation in the human population leads to Down Syndrome. This is a detrimental mutation and doesn't help the individual. However, some mutations help an animal survive better than others without the mutation. This brings us to natural selection. Natural selection is the survivability of a mutation in nature. If a mutation is beneficial to an organism by helping it better survive in its ecological niche and later reproduce, this process is evolution.

    When the toads in the article ended up with longer legs, where did that come from? It was a positive mutation, one that helped the organism better survive. However, natural selection works both ways - it can allow a trait to flourish when it is beneficial and allow the trait to disappear when it's not. This is the case with the frogs. Having longer legs allow certain frogs to move faster to new habitat, thus acting as a benefit. The legs were only beneficial when the population was traveling. Once the populations settles, the legs were clearly detrimental and natural selection eliminated the trait. This is evolution! It would not be surprising to find, upon later analysis of the genome of the frogs, that no genetic material remains for long legs. It was a mutation that flourish and the died.

    What I find interesting about most creationists is that they've realized they need to accept evolution because it's happening all the time. As such, they often call it "micro-evolution" and suggest that animals are limited in their evolution within what they call "kinds" (a completely unscientific term). For "kinds" to be true there are only two options: (1) Random mutations are somehow limited or (2) Positive mutations don't happen and the original animals in a "kind" had all genetic material that currently exists within that population. Fortunately, genetics has shown that there doesn't seem to be any limit on mutation nor do any animal populations carry such massive genetic structures.

    The idea of accepting micro-evolution within "kinds" while denying evolution as a whole is like saying I can walk from my door to my mailbox, but I can't walk from New York to Chicago. One is pretty easy to do and the other takes a damned long time! Evolution on a grand scale takes so long for large organisms that we haven't been civilized long enough to catalog it - so instead of me walking from N.Y. to Chicago, imaging a flea walking from Beijing to Madrid.

    Oh, and to clarify for David: I'm glad you've accepted that you believe "the world comes from a non-material Source and this colours [your] perspective." While this makes you a fine person, it makes you a terrible scientist. For accurate science, you must begin by assuming nothing about origin... no presuppositions! It colors your worldview and would distort your science! If you assumed a geocentric worldview, you'd be attempting to fight that. By suggesting that God is responsible for specific things you risk the chance that such things could be overturned by science (e.g. God makes it rain, etc.) and have a God-of-the-Gaps.

  4. The idea of accepting micro-evolution within "kinds" while denying evolution as a whole is like saying I can walk from my door to my mailbox, but I can't walk from New York to Chicago.

    Brad you have asserted that there is plenty of evidence to support unlimited progression of mutation.

    You claim that genetics support this, prove it. Provide me with people, studies, cases or even particular mutations that support your case. If you do Alex's trick of coughing and spluttering and then saying school yard style "No, you prove it first"; I'll know you have not support for your opinion.

    For a start from our perspective genticists disaggree with you, here is one for a start. Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), the head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland.

    For accurate science, you must begin by assuming nothing about origin... no presuppositions! It colors your worldview and would distort your science!

    I was astounded when I got your comment the other day! You really think that you and other evolutionists have no presuppositions? Poor you for knowing yourself so little.

    Your world view is revealed in your science. Come on mate look around you there is plenty of evidence to show that you have a philosophical and scientific world view. That is why you disagree with others, their perspective on the world is different to you! So lets not be so high and mighty hey? Your world view colours your science also.

    Incidentally the sub-text that comes in your comments is what Dawkins has asserted. That religious people are deluded and have been indoctrinated as children and the only true way to look at the world is evolutionarily.

    Two quick refutations. One from Dawkins himself in the blind watchmaker where he admits that to do evolutionary science as a biologist you need to blind yourself to the apparent design of things. That is a huge admittion from an avowed atheist - the natural assumption is that thw world is designed!

    The second refutation comes from another oxford man, Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind. He found that not only do children naturally have faith in a deity but that they believe creationism over evolution! So who is doing the indoctrination here?!

    Oh and PS the enlargement of a particular system in the body is not evidence of evolution in action. To support that claim we'd need to see novel characteristics being formed. So no this is more like breeding chickens with bigger drumsticks - they're still chickens.

  5. Before I get to the rest of your comment (when I have time later), some quick refutations of your refutations:
    "he admits that to do evolutionary science as a biologist you need to blind yourself to the apparent design of things."

    Having never read any Dawkins, I don't know the context of that statement. However, it's possible that you're misreading his use of the term. To say something is designed can mean "to intend for a definite purpose" or "to assign in thought or intention" or even something's "purpose." In this case Dawkins could be saying that you need to blind yourself to the "apparent design" or rather apparent intention or purpose. In this case, a biological structure could seem intended for a certain purpose with clear evolutionary origin. However, we cannot make any assumptions and thus need to ignore what is 'apparent' in the design/purpose/intention.

    "not only do children naturally have faith in a deity but that they believe creationism over evolution! So who is doing the indoctrination here?!"
    If only children were brilliant from birth! Unfortunately, children also believe in geocentrism over heliocentrism, so I hope you don't believe them there! Your second "refutation" is quite silly!

    And Professor Maciej Giertych? Wow, talk about an obscure scientist with clear creationist leanings.

  6. Not happy with Professor Maciej Giertych? Sorry Brad I should have given you a more complete list, here is a link for you with more, bio's often included.

  7. Only about 200? Oh, I'm so sorry, I didn't know it was so few. Also, I don't know about the inclusion of a few of them. It's odd to see psychologists, electrical or aerospace engineers, dentists, mathematicians, etymologists, and even a plastic surgeon on the list! I would have imagined a longer list of scientists who specialize in fields more closely related to the science of evolution and Earth's origins. Adding some of those folks makes it seem a bit desperate. Maybe over time you'll build a more reputable group as creationism makes headway into the academic community.

  8. David:

    Thanks for your blog, I've iGoogled it (added it to my iGoogle homepage) and your articles help.

    Personally, as a presuppositionalist, I don't normally bother with the macro-evolutionary evidence or evidence to the contrary.

    Belief in the Word of God as a whole, and living this side of Darwin, however, I'm finding it increasingly helpful to familiarize myself anew with all the junk the State schools pumped into my brain.

    Anyhow, thanks for maintaining the site. It's helpful.

    @ Brad:

    "Only 200, eh?..."

    Wow. Now it comes down to a counting of noses, huh? Sort of reminds me of Hitler Germany, when being a Nazi was a good thing so long as you hailed the fuhrer.

    All I'm driving at is this: a counting of noses (like Nazi Germanic noses) doesn't make truth.

    It makes one popular, if you count your nose amongst theirs, but popular with whom?

    All I'm saying at this point is simply: yes, Christians aren't popular with the world. That is actually par for the course, as the world crucified the Son of God and His apostles and prophets. Naturally such vitriolic statements as the dismissive "Oh, only 200 scientists agree with YEC?" are to be expected.

    Ironically, such insults prove our Christian faith: Jesus told us it would be so.

    Thanks for affirming!

  9. I usually make it a rule to avoid or end conversations when people bring up the Nazis (e.g. Godwin's Law leading to reductio-ad-Hitlerum), but in this case I'll make a rare exception.

    First of all, I know this isn't a popularity contest. But since you're the first to make a radical comparison, I'll make a radical one of my own: Most historians, who know their material and first-hand accounts, accept that the Holocaust happened and millions of people were sent to their deaths. However, there is a small group of purportedly reputable historians, some with PhD's, who deny that the Holocaust took place. They're not popular, because they disagree with the rest of their academic community. In fact, most other historians think they're misconstruing history, taking sources out of context, and making a mockery of the profession. Furthermore, they fuel a non-existent debate and give a comparably ignorant media and population the idea that there is some sort of legitimate debate about the historicity of the Holocaust. I think my metaphor is clear - but remember, it's only a metaphor.

    Regarding the popularity of Christians in the world, I hate to say it but some of you have a martyr complex. "Oh, yay! They're persecuting us! We must be right!" It's also funny, because it seems like you assumed that I'm not a Christian when I didn't give any indication of my faith. For all you know I could very well be a Christian who believes in theistic evolution and thinks that creationist Christians are making a mockery of the faith and giving Christianity a bad name! Then again, you might deem a belief in "Biblical" creation essential to salvation, in which case my faith doesn't really matter.

    I wasn't being vitriolic when I was commenting on the 200 scientists: "Only about 200? Oh, I'm so sorry, I didn't know it was so few." I actually thought it would be more, considering the amount of time, energy, and all around effort I see from the creationist community. I live not too far from the AiG Creation Museum, so I'm pretty familiar with the movement.

    Insults really don't prove the Christian faith at all, since dozens of other religions have held up to similar.

    Also, the "Thanks for affirming!" comes of not as Christ-like, but as cocky. In fact, your entire post was upsetting.

    Matthew 25:41-45

    "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. @ Brad:

    Re: the Hitler issue, I only brought it up to denote that counting noses is no epistemology I'd stand on.

    When I read your comment about "Only 200, eh?" culminating in Adding some of those folks makes it seem a bit desperate. Maybe over time you'll build a more reputable group as creationism makes headway into the academic community.--I dunno, I found that, in your words, "upsetting."

    They crucified Jesus, killed the Apostles and Prophets: such vitriol as you espouse (whether in your opinion was or was not vitriol is another issue) is in line with the words of Jesus. We are not greater than our Master.

    IF you are Christian, and deny 6 day creation: you aren't Christian.

    IF you espouse theistic evolution, you deny God's Word and favor men's theory to God's revelation. As such: God lied, men proved His Word wrong, i.e.: you can't be a Christian.

    No Christian takes man's changing scientific opinion over the immutable Word. 6 day creation isn't allegorical, either. Just read the 4th Commandment.

    I found your comments, all of them frankly, upsetting. Does that matter?

    Do I get a hankie?

    Honestly, please don't play the "I can't stand your Christians....they're so unChristian" while trying to defend evolution! If you are claiming to be Christian, I call you to believe God's plain Word on creation. Macro-evolution isn't compatible, as this series has aptly shown.

    If you are NOT Christian, please don't make sarcastic jibes, condescending the YEC, and then expect lovely, uplifting comments in return.

    Matthew 23, the whole chapter, has biting words from Jesus. He wasn't trying to be a gentleman. In contending for the Truth, I'm in good company. After reading all the comments, it doesn't sound like it's the Truth of the Bible you're trying to defend. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  12. I wasn't espousing any vitrol, and I'm sorry that you keep taking it like that. However, now I think you do have a bit of the martyr complex, since you've now compared my statement to the crucifixion! Please reread my original statement on the 200 scientists, and this time do it in a sympathetic manner. I think you'll be surprised how much of the vitriol you read into the statement yourself. Now, however, you have upset me and I am being vitriolic.

    "Do I get a hankie?" WOW! How incredible. You're behavior is just incredible, for a Christian that is.

    Also, I'm glad you know God's Will so well that you have the power to declare who is Christian and who isn't. Since you're clearly the voicepiece of God, could you clear something up for me? In 2 Peter 3, it seems to indicate that God is beyond the bounds of time. This seems like for God, one day could mean a thousand years, and yet one thousand years could mean a day. As such, in Genesis, when no one was around to perceive the "days" other than God, could we not accept this as a beautiful poetic description of the Creation?

    I already know you're answer. No, it's not, it has to be literal. You even have reasons why it has to be literal. That's great. I'm glad you know exactly the interpretation of scripture that God wants. How nice for you to have such a connection, but I'm sorry if I see you as a crazy false-prophet who can cite scripture with the devil. In Islam it's common to end any interpretation with the phrase "But God knows best," indicating that one is merely giving one's own opinion. I think you should learn some humility from them. Oh, and maybe you should learn some science too.

    To cite the 4th commandment doesn't really make sense to me. One can never do justice to an imitation of God, since we're merely mortal and God is, well, God. It's great metaphor and good to follow but I don't accept it as literal either.

    This series hasn't aptly shown anything other than a completely inaccurate understanding of evolution. The author has set up a straw-man that he can just as readily knock down as poke fun at.

    I seriously hope that one day the blinders of ignorance are lifted from your eyes. I don't think God gave humanity the gift of wisdom, knowledge, and rational thought to close our minds into a box where they will shrivel and atrophy. The hatred and anger that many YEC groups espouse doesn't help your cause at all. I'm sorry I expected a Christian to be a little more Christ-like, but then again you and I follow very different Christs. It seems like I'm following the God of Love, and you're following the God of Law.

    It looks like we will never agree, so I bid you, and this blog, adieu. Never expect to see another comment from me here again, as I' going to try to stay away.

    I forgive you for your unkindness, and hope you gain more peace in your life.

  13. @ Brad:

    Though I can read your threat to leave quite plainly, I'll post a rebuttal anyhow.

    First, if I mis-read your comment, then I'm illiterate. Please explain your diminutive statement in another way, when you claimed YEC's needed to have a more "credible" group of scientists in order to rise in academic circles.

    Secondly, quoting from Peter is fine and dandy, but you need to quote him in context. What is Peter talking about in that passage?


    Does he mention 6 day anything?

    Or, is he talking about the church's need to be ready for the return of Jesus, because they had expected Him to return earlier and some had grown lax and skeptical?

    Re-read Peter before you respond, and quit proof-texting to support your scientific claims which are contrary to God's Word.

    There are several reasons why the 6 day creation account is a literal 6 days and not merely poetry, but speaking of poetry: when the Bible uses it, it doesn't mean, "Oh! I'm waxing eloquent here, this is all metaphor."

    Rather, the Bible is plain in its teaching of 6 days, as can be seen from the following:

    1) Use of "and there was evening, and morning" at the end of the days of creation.

    2) The use of numbering every day, "On the first day...on the second day...etc."

    3) The use of the 6 days in the 4th commandment makes it plain: to keep the Sabbath holy, to do our work in SIX DAYS and rest the SEVENTH, just as God did in creation.

    It's not figurative.

    Here's another point: if you are a Christian and don't believe God's Word, how are you different from Satan?

    He didn't believe God either. It was he who said, "Hath God really said...?" as he tempted our first parents.

    Then again, if you don't espouse the days of creation, you probably don't espouse the fact that Adam and Eve were our first parents.

    In which case, we get to the heart of the matter: the Gospel is at stake. Give up 6 days, give up literal, historical/grammatical interpretation, give up infallibility of God's Word: you give up the Gospel.

    Satan knew that from the get-go. He wanted to make God a liar. So do evolutionists.

    In six days God made all there is.

    Why is that so hard to believe, if you're a Christian? Do you trust God or not?

  14. Like I said, I knew you'd have some round-about bend-over-backwards way to justify cold stark literalism. I figure you also have a great way to explain Biblical contradictions and other issues. I more or less skimmed your argument because I've heard all the bullshit before. I'm only answering now because it's my day off and I want to explain English to you - then I'm gone. Really, this isn't getting us anywhere.

    Before I get to English, let me say I think YEC's are one of Satan's best tools in modern times. You're driving many more souls away from Christ than the few you delude with your restricted, hardline dogma. I've found the best way to turn my friends away from faith is to introduce them to YEC's and the like. But that's just my experience - maybe the movement is more successful than it appears in southern Ohio.

    Now, let's get to the issue of your illiteracy, as you put it. I'll break down my original post phrase by phrase so you might better understand.

    "Only about 200? Oh, I'm so sorry, I didn't know it was so few."
    This is legitimate surprise, followed by an apology. I was surprised that the list was small compared to the size of the academic community, and I empathized that you're working with such comparably limited support.

    "Also, I don't know about the inclusion of a few of them."
    This is puzzlement. I found some of the names of the list to be out of place, so I thought I would comment on that. I don't know it's best to include them.

    "It's odd to see psychologists, electrical or aerospace engineers, dentists, mathematicians, etymologists, and even a plastic surgeon on the list!
    These are the people I was legitimately surprised to see since they don't seem to apply. I figured I would mention them because it was important to my suggestions on how you would improve.

    "I would have imagined a longer list of scientists who specialize in fields more closely related to the science of evolution and Earth's origins."
    This was my suggestion for the eventual expansion of the list. In order to better impress or influence non-YEC's, I think following this suggestion will benefit you more than the aforementioned people who didn't seem to fit.

    "Adding some of those folks makes it seem a bit desperate.
    This was a criticism of how the out-of-place people made the list appear. It seemed like the compiler was grasping for names and added people who weren't particularly pertinent to the argument. It's great that a PhD mathematician is a creationist, but it doesn't support an argument on evolution. If an argument seems desperate, people are less likely to follow it, so I was suggesting a change to help.

    "Maybe over time you'll build a more reputable group as creationism makes headway into the academic community."
    This is a hope for you, which I thought was a good thing. To restate the sentence, 'As creationism makes headway into the academic community, I would only expect you to build a more reputable group.' This means that as more and more academics get on board with creation science, the list will become more and more reputable and influential. While this is not something I personally want to see, I was vocalizing your hope for the future.

    That concludes our lesson on English and analysis of a paragraph only meant in kindness and constructive criticism. I hope you've now come to understand the positive reading of my post.

    As I expected I'm finding it hard to turn away, but will make an attempt to avoid further contact since I know I won't make any headway with anyone here.

  15. @ Brad:

    Your sentence re: dung of bulls and your other sentence in which you admitted you didn't want the YEC movement to rise in academic circles equated to:

    I was right about your assessment in the first place.

    Nuances or no, you were condescending, not expressing hope. But that was my take. If I was way off, please pardon my diatribe.

    As to "bending over backwards" to read the Bible as it was meant to be understood, according to the Bible itself, I'm a bit apoplectic on that one.

    How much more clearly could God have said, "I created the entire universe in 6 days"? Did He have to break it down into 144 hours of creation? 8,640 minutes of creation? 518,400 seconds of creation?

    And, in anticipating your next response, yes I have a calculator.

    On a serious note, you mention that this hardline dogma is driving people away: guess what? That's exactly what Jesus did in John 6 and elsewhere. Read the prophets: repent! Obey God! That was their cry. Put another way, "Read God's Word and DO IT!"

    Re: creation, if you don't believe God in the opening lines of Scripture, it's no wonder you don't with the rest of the Gospel.

    Like Satan before you, "Hath God really said...?" is an age-old question that has lead us straight on the path to perdition.

    I'll look like a fool any day in the eyes of the academic circles: who really cares what a bunch of God-hating, God-denying atheists think of my worldview?

    Which should I listen to or ascribe to more: God and His Word, or an atheistic scientific community? Should I seek God's approval, or the approval of mankind?

    Gotta run. Fence to build. Thanks for chatting with me, however.

  16. I think you were right before that you must be somehow functionally illiterate, because even after I outlined the original intent of my posting you still declare that you were right about your assessment. I was expressing your hope, just not something I hope. Reread my sentences and I think that will become clear: "Maybe over time you'll build a more reputable group as creationism makes headway into the academic community" and the rewording "As creationism makes headway into the academic community, I would only expect you to build a more reputable group." I assumed that these were your hopes, and while I don't agree with them that doesn't make it condescending. The second sentence is particularly true, because I would fully expect your movement to build a better list if creationism makes headway into the academic community. I'm sorry I wasn't able to explain it well since you still read negativity into what was wholly a positive paragraph.

    I'm also sorry I called your Biblical jumping-jacks bullshit, but I was at my wits end. I'm clearly not perfect, and talking too much with Biblical literalists has a tendency to get on my nerves. Instead I only managed to fan the fires of your martyrdom-complex by insulting you. Regarding that pseudo-masochism, let me make one thing clear: Just because you're being chastised for your beliefs doesn't make them at all true. Someone who denies the Holocaust, believes in aliens, or says that the world is ruled by secret reptilian overlords is going to face similar treatment. Plenty of other religious groups are persecuted as well.

    If you think I've been condescending, you're a master of it yourself with your breaking days into minutes, the calculator comment, etc.

    Lastly, I'm sad that you think of the academic world as "a bunch of God-hating, God-denying atheists." It's a rash generalization.

    You live in such a small, scary, black-and-white world. I know a few people who have escaped the darkness of fundamentalist Christianity, and I sincerely hope that you and others can find your way out of that legalism. I only know that I cannot help you.

  17. @ Brad:

    I'm sorry. Really. If I mis-read you, please excuse my accusative tone. I'm a hardcore cynic, and I read and re-read what you said with a tone. If it wasn't meant to be there, I'm truly sorry.

    As to the rash generalization, me calling the academic world as God-hating and God-denying chaff, or something to that effect...hmmm.

    Not sorry. I don't have much hope for the academic establishment: look what's happened to the Ivy League, for starters. Then view the history of the Dept of Education in the USA. The only "sorry" I have there is that the Dept of Ed exists.

    But that's another topic.

    You keep calling me a fundie: I'm a reformed Christian. I don't subscribe to fundamentalism, but then again, I'm not sure of your definition of that term. Mine is pretty historical, and I'm anti-fundamentalist, if we take the same meaning.

    When God said, time and again, that He made the universe in 6 days, sorry: evolution is a replacement for such. As such, I'll contest it until Jesus comes back.

    2 Corinthians 10:4-6

    For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.

    We Christians aren't called to be passive, politically correct, or popular. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.

    Hence: Darwinism and materialism, as well as atheism and every competing worldview will be destroyed by the faithful. Darwinism and Christianity are incompatible, hands down.

  18. "You keep calling me a fundie."
    I only said it once.

    It's too bad you've written off academia, because I find so much beauty in knowledge I just hope others would see that too. Creationism has so much that it needs to undermine in modern science. Biology, genetics, geology, physics (radiometric dating), astronomy, and practically every other field of science has had something to say in support of the current scientific view of the universe and life on Earth. The amount of research, studies, and peer-reviewed reports that you need to undermine is amazing.

    Anyway, I'm very glad the Dept. of Education exists, because I think an uneducated populous would mean the death of our nation! I'm sure you'd prefer more "Biblical values" and creation science to be taught in public schools, which I'd guess is one reason why you're against it.

    "Darwinism and Christianity are incompatible, hands down."
    There are many, many people in the world who have managed to reconcile them. At the forefront is Dr. Francis Collins and the BioLogos Foundation ( Saying that they're incompatible is your opinion, and I hope you would accept a little humility and agree it is an opinion. You might seriously be right, and can believe it all you want, but it's opinion.

    Anyway, I'm glad this fiery argument appears to be ending peacefully.

  19. @ Brad:

    Agreed: I don't want to leave you on bad terms.

    The idea of the beauty in knowledge and academia: I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't think that there is such a thing as unbiased education or academia. Because of the Christian definition or starting point of anthropology, which is fallen and sinful as well as created in God's image, we have both the capacity for pursuit of knowledge but the limp of being maimed by sin.

    We lean towards sin, naturally, even if such sin is merely academic or isn't that glaring. We won't, for instance, all be Jack the Ripper.

    In any event, to say I've written off academia is a bit of a stretch, I think education is quite important. It's one of the ways we excel: learn more.

    What we learn and by what bias we learn is the issue I take with the Dept of Ed. It's not that I think we ought to have uneducated masses, but rather that the job of education doesn't belong to the state.

    Before the DOE there were geniuses like Jonathan Edwards, Isaac Watts, Isaac Newton, Simon Greenleaf, the founding fathers of America.

    After the DOE, like all things the government gets involved in, the educational level declined, as did the morality of our nation.

    But alas! A digression. Thanks again for being reconciled, and I apologize again for causing strife unduly.

  20. "Before the DOE there were geniuses like... After the DOE, the educational level declined..."

    Oh, but that's too simple! Not only were some of those you mentioned Brits, but c'mon you're being obviously selective! (Greenleaf and Watts?!?) Now the Founding Fathers, on the other hand, had a bunch of liberal secularists among them! :-)

    Before the DOE, what percentage of the population received that level of education? Most people were the uneducated masses. Now our nation is not only producing amazing thinkers, but everyone is receiving an education. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but it's much better than anything before it. I suppose I shouldn't neglect private religious schooling, but it's still around.

    And blaming the school system for declining morality? I might accept that it played some part, but it was certainly far from alone.

    Anyways, now we're really off topic!

  21. @ Brad:

    True. Oversimplification. AND off topic! The subject is really deserving of more thorough treatment.

    Enjoy your weekend! Monday looms.


Note: All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will not be approved. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will not be approved.