Saturday, November 07, 2009 Last Update:07:14 pm ET

Opinion|Tue, Jul. 01 2008 05:24 PM EDT

Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin

By CP Contributor|Rev. Michael Dowd

July 1st marks the 150th anniversary of the theory of evolution. For years, I believed that Darwin was of the devil. Now, I deeply honor his contribution to religion and my walk with God. Indeed, other than Jesus, no one has had a more positive impact on my faith and my ministry than has Charles Darwin.

For the last six years as an itinerant evolutionary evangelist, I have preached the good news of evolution from the pulpits of hundreds of churches across America. Faith can be strengthened and difficulties in life surmounted—all by bringing a mainstream scientific understanding of evolution into our religious lives. The response has been phenomenal. People of all ages and across the theological spectrum light up when they see new possibilities open for them, their loved ones, and the world. Often tearfully, always excitedly, they share their testimonials. Here is mine.

Jesus and a nurturing church community gave me a lifeline in my struggles to find sobriety as a young man. A corollary of being born again, however, was that the preachers I listened to and the authors I read told me that accepting evolution would seduce me away from godly living. At first I believed them. But then I met professors, ministers, priests, nuns, rabbis, and chaplains who not only accepted an evolutionary view of cosmos and culture but found it religiously inspiring. Soon I too came to embrace the history of everyone and everything as our common Creation story.

Today, thanks to Charles Darwin and the countless evolutionary scientists and writers he inspired—in fields as diverse as astrophysics, geology, genetics, primatology, sociobiology, and brain science—I interpret my Christian faith in far broader and more this-world realistic ways than ever before. It is obvious to me now that God didn’t stop revealing truth vital to human wellbeing back when people believed the world was flat and religious insights were recorded on animal skins. God is still communicating faithfully today, publicly, through the worldwide, self-correcting scientific enterprise. I now see science as revelatory and facts as God’s native tongue.

From this perspective, divine grace and guidance extend back billions, not just thousands, of years. Looking at the history of the universe through sacred eyes, my faith is strengthened and my heart filled with joy. No longer do I fear that my family and friends will suffer for eternity in the fires of an otherworldly hell. No longer am I led astray by my instincts—my unchosen nature. And no longer do I find it difficult to live in integrity and know the peace that passes all understanding.

When I ponder the past, I am humbled and filled with unspeakable awe and gratitude at our journey through deep time to the present moment. When I see suffering nearly everywhere today, I am overwhelmed with compassion and called to action. And when I look to the immediate or distant future, I am filled with faith, hope, and a sense of urgency to do my part in ushering in God’s kingdom on Earth as it is in heaven.

For me, the ethics of evolution are not only consistent with the teachings of religion, they advance it. An evolutionary understanding urges me to grow in morality and to expand my circles of care and compassion—even to include those who see the world in very different ways. My worship of God now includes doing everything I can to ensure a just and thriving future for planet Earth, for our children's children, and for as many species as possible. As an ordained Christian minister, I cannot imagine a higher calling for myself.

I am not, of course, trying to claim that Darwin’s legacy has been entirely positive. Just as atrocities have been committed in the name of Jesus and Christianity, so have evils been perpetrated in the name of Darwin and evolution. There will always be those who distort the work of great men and women to advance their own shortsighted and self-centered ends. But when I look back over my life and reflect on the significant people who have blessed me, my relationships, and my world, Jesus and Darwin are at the top of my list.

_______________________________________________________

Rev. Michael Dowd is the author of Thank God for Evolution (Viking), which has been endorsed by five Nobel Prize-winners and dozens of other scientific and religious leaders.
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
  • Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    talking about bringing the gap, here's another. Give it time, plenty more to be found.

    www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080709144213.htm

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The feeling is mutual.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm heading to bed. I've got your websites written down, and will check them out at my earliest convenience. Thank you for the mature discussion. It's nice to not have to deal with pubescent people who like to name call.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here, you'll like this one.

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/as-fossil-snake.html

    "Where are the fossils? "

    http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/new-order.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapodomorpha

    "then when exactly does a "thing" become another species"

    When group A can no longer breed with group B, that is, at the lowest level how to determine when each group is a particular species.

    "what are they called until they become another species?"

    Generally sub-species, or hybrids. There are for instance examples of sub species for homo sapient fossils.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "And you haven't proved that this land-walking fish could, or could not, breed with whatever it evolved from."

    Based on their fossils alone its not as easy to determine if they could interbreed, but what we know from current species and their physiology suggests they couldn't. They were too different and beyond 'sub species', they were too different to be breeding. If creationists recognize their difference in appearance relates to the ability to breed.

    More over, evolution isn't predicated on finding this X animal which could breed with the next X animal and so on. The model/theory suggests/predicts we should find, if evolution is true, an intermediary group of animals which bridge the gap from a specific type of lobe finned fish to the first amphibian tetrapods. The examples I gave aren't the whole list, and don't think for a second we are done finding them, plenty more will be found. This same type of 'bridging the gap' is displayed in many lineages, some of the best preserved are of Horses and Elephants and their ancestors.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm sure that there were thousands of "things" that were born and lived between the walking fish and it's predecessor. Where are the fossils?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You said "There is no single mutation that results in species"
    And I say "duh".
    Where are the fossils of the...."things" that were in existence between the walking fish and the fish it evolved from.
    And if there is no "one" single mutation, then when exactly does a "thing" become another species...and what are they called until they become another species?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "show me inter-species mutation. All you showed me was another species."

    'Interspecies mutation'? There is no single mutation that results in species A diverging into species A1 and A2, the process occurs over successive generations through a process known as genetic drifting. The alles in a population are generally homogeneous, however when one group becomes physically isolated they can accrue their own unique variations and such drifting pushes the varied group further apart. If they come back in contact and breed with their ancestral group, then all is well and they can maintain their homogeneous gene pool makeup, but if they stay isolated, speciation will occur.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

    Once a species becomes genetically isolated, it will become less and less like its ancestral species going on their own genetic trajectory until they are no longer able to breed and produce fertile offspring with their former group. At this point they are different species, once they cross this barrier they can't go back.

    a good example of this is known as ring species

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And you haven't proved that this land-walking fish could, or could not, breed with whatever it evolved from. Therefore, according to your theory, you cannot prove that it evolved to begin with.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And you still can't show me inter-species mutation. All you showed me was another species.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "would it be another species?"

    Not necessarily. If you wanted to simply say any physical changes on the outside would determine a new species, then it would be wrong, as even a person with blue eyes can breed with a brown eyed person and like wise for a population of people who had an extra set of arms. This new group however would be identified as a new ancestral species, like a sub species, they could potentially still breed with their ancestral group, but perhaps not. It all comes down to how different mommy and daddies DNA are and if and when they combine can they produce and fertile offspring, that ultimately is what matters. If they can't, then we are talking about a different species for sure.

    What matters is if population A can successfully breed with population B, that is how we determine at the lowest level in biology if they are of the same species. Now, as any biologist will tell you, the same species will have some variation, but by en large they are very similar, both genetically and physiologically. This is how we can tell by looking at Homo Neanderthal fossils and their DNA that they weren't a sub species of homo sapiens, they were of their own species.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "And you said you even agreed with me that one day a fish didn't just sprout limbs and start walking."

    Correct. The evolutionary process isn't an 'overnight' fish to amphibian, it is successive and cumulative adding upon existing structures and according to physical constraints. This is why at this stage I gave you Acanthostega. 'Oh but that's not a fish' you'll say, and I would agree it's not a fish, as it has limbs, shoulder blades, digits and a tail, but like a fish it had gills.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I'm happy for you. A non-scientist, web runner, telling a college graduate that he's wrong."

    'web runner'? you know nothing about me, maybe I work in science maybe I don't, that however is moot to the facts which I used on Wells specific one liners. Surely I could take more time and pick the rest of his article apart. Anybody can show anyone else is wrong, in the case of Wells, I just did.

    also note that Wells' graduated 1st with his degree in theology from yale, only later did you musle through and become degreed in science. funny thing is, you can't really find any of this work out there, really. Look on NSA, or NSB, or NSCE and good luck trying to find his peer reviewed articles or anything that has stood up under critique. I mean check out the the reviews on his book 'Icons of Evolution', they didn't help him any.

    www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution

    "Where's the "Missing link" between those limbs and fins? "

    Tiktaalik. read them all, not just one.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, as I said, if people (notice the plural...meaning that it was becoming normal) were being born with another pair of arms, would it be another species?
    You said if group A (people with one set of arms) could successfully breed with group B (people with two set) then they were not a different species.
    So then, the fish that you talked about...the one with legs...how do you know if it was capable of breeding with whatever it evolved from?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *Then what qualifies as a new species?*

    Can group A successfully breed and produce viable offspring with group B ? If not, then they indeed have separate and distinct genetic biological development (the zygote) which prevents it from occurring and therefore are, (drum roll) different species. Having arms or not makes not the slightest difference. People born without legs and or arms reproduce all the time, it's not limbs, it's their genetics and how similar they're to their mate.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange,
    I'm happy for you. A non-scientist, web runner, telling a college graduate that he's wrong. Who needs college education...unless you believe in evolution. Then it's worth something.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Then what qualifies as a new species? If people started growing another set of arms, would that be a new species?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "It's a lost cause trying to get through to him. "

    how do you think I feel, I just had to rebuke an old 2004 article from Mr. Wells stating not a single observation of speciation have occurred, clearly once one reviews the literature he's wrong.

    "does that make them a new species? "

    No. So long as this new *modified* group/population can successively breed and produce viable offspring they are of the same genetic pool and this is what quantifies at the lowest level what is and isn't of the same species group. If they can breed bu produce infertile offspring, like Horse and Donkeys or Lions and Tigers, then obviously any lineage from their hybridization isn't viable and can't reproduce. at this point we would qualify each as their own species for this purpose. Their are of course other qualifiers, but this is the lowest level one.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O geez...I just saw what an Acanthostega looks like. Um, you just missed my point. And you said you even agreed with me that one day a fish didn't just sprout limbs and start walking. And so you show me a picture of a fish with legs.
    Where's the "Missing link" between those limbs and fins?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    By the way, if some day people are born without appendixes...does that make them a new species?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *sigh*
    God help me. It's a lost cause trying to get through to him.
    I'm goin back to just posting the truth, and let people make fools of themselves trying to explain it away.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *appendix.*

    I would say it serves some nominal functional role, however yes a person can live fine without it and many times, like wisdom teeth they are removed due to complications. darn designer.

    *Is that evolving? Or adapting? *

    Adaptation is evolution.They both imply biological changes over time, same difference. Be my guest, get lost in word semantics, but the meaning is the same. And yes it is, at least compared with the our closest living ancestors, chimps & bonobos, who have still the oversized appendixes which is crucial based on their mostly high fiber diet.

    Technically, the genetic mutations you have in comparison to your parents is biological changes over time (evolution). I didn't see any note of any virus from you, just the one I put. Maybe I'm loosing it, repost and I'll read it.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *http://www.discovery.org/a/2292*

    "Yet Darwin's mechanism, natural selection, has NEVER been OBSERVED to produce a SINGE NEW species."

    Wow, now that IS a lie. Here are but a few Mr. Wells.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_45

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/still-just-a-li.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria

    What's your point, it's not Darwin's theory anymore, there is so much new information he never knew about (and how could he?) and some of the things he got wrong that it would be logically wrong to define it by his name alone. He was hardly the only scientist of his day to identify life changing over time, so had he not coined it, another would have.

    Riddle me this Mister, why didn't Mr. wells and many others from the Discovery Institute bother to testify in Dover to support their ideas?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And I apologize. I noticed that I mispelled it. It's actually "leaching".

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    People used to need their appendix. Now it's almost completely useless. Is that evolving? Or adapting? Those websites I noted talk about the virus thing. Check them out.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ohhhhh. Okay. You didn't read anything I posted, or any website that i posted. Well, check them out and you'll understand.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *leeching is a fairytale?*

    what are you talking about, leeching?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "why isnt it still happening? "

    Oh but it is, however this process of such changes from lobe finned fish to amphibious tetrapod as you noted is not one of 'FedEx overnight delivery'. Evolution is based around reproduction, which means successive generations is required. Some get the impression that evolution should produce a cat giving birth to a dog, or a chimp giving birth to a fully formed human, but that is absolutely wrong.

    Evolution is occurring right now. Scientists have identified the gene mutation, CCR5, which allows for the host to be immune to specific types of HIV. This mutation prevents the co-receptors of the virus from bonding and thus it can't replicate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So leeching is a fairytale?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "if a fish evolved into a legged land animal...where's the fossils of those creatures?"

    The area of science is known as 'Evo-Devo', or evolutionary development, and you're correct at no point would you have a fish spawning a fully limbed tetrapod amphibian, the process is successive and cumulative.

    Meet Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and They are from a group of quasi-fish quasi-tetrapods which existed.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega

    http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-ichthyostega.html

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Um, that's what we're trying to figure out. If we knew when the rock was formed, we wouldn't need all these tests, would we?"

    yes, are trying to figure out the dates, however in such cases like Mt. St. Helens and other recent activity we can test a method which we know/suspect is only good for ancient mineral deposits b/c of its slowly decaying particles, like K-Ar. Therefore we can deduce that if the age is inflated, something like a million years for a 10 year lava flow, then obviously the isotope we are using in this instance is wrong and should opt for another. Deduction, calibration.

    ""doesn't sound right", well...just pick another until you get a result that you want. "

    No, not at all, how many times must this be reiterated, certain isotopes decay at certain given rates and based on this and other information, like the ratios of parent to daughter elements we can gauge the age of said minerals. IE, we use numerous methods concurrently on the same material, the selection process isn't arbitrary like throwing all possible ones at it, we know going in for instance that certain recent events can't be analyzed with some like K-Ar as the isotopes which they measure don't work for such short durations, so we opt for a faster decaying isotope.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I just came across an interesting article from the Center for Science and Culture. Talking about the flaws in Darwins theory (which is what it is).

    http://www.discovery.org/a/2292

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The one thing about evolution that hasn't been resolved is what i call "'interspecies development." i'm sure there's a scientific name for it, but im not a scientist, just someone with common sense.
    if a fish evolved into a legged land animal...where's the fossils of those creatures? surely a fish just wasnt born one day with a complete set of land usable appendages. they evolved little by little from fins into legs. where are the fossils of fish with both lungs and gills.
    i know we have the lung fish today, but thats a far cry from what is needed. a lung fish isnt truly a land animal since it cannot live on land indefinitely.
    im sure there is evidence, but id like to know where it is.
    and if evolution is truly real, why isnt it still happening?
    i know...same old questions...
    and still waiting on answers.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "...like how recent the rock is..."
    Um, that's what we're trying to figure out. If we knew when the rock was formed, we wouldn't need all these tests, would we?

    So, it sounds to me, like there are a number of different tests so that if the results from one "doesn't sound right", well...just pick another until you get a result that you want.
    Basically, instead of testing to find an answer...you're testing to fit a preconcieved answer.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    * I get more and more of a feeling that agentorange is a net-surfing scientist.*

    no, generally I read from such publications as Science, but the Internet is a great resource, it of course like other published works hinges off of whoever the author is cited something, in which case with creationwiki and their radiometric page, they most certainly didn’t.

    *if a rock is dated at 10 billion years old one day, 30,000 years old the next, and 4 million years old, the next...that they are all correct? Or that the last one is?*

    No, it depends on factors, like how recent the rock is and what type/composition its made of. IE, if we date solidified morphic rock that we just saw come from a volcano we know it can't be obviously be millions or 100,000 of years old, so the error is with which isotope we are measuring and so in our deduction we choose another, one that decays faster to reveal a real age. In such a case we use a quicker decay isotope, but again recall these measurements aren't absolute, they have margins.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *Everyone one has to measure up to them*

    Well if Ken Hamm, Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and others would like to be included in the discussions on such evidence perhaps they should do what the rest of the science community does in coming to science meetings, publishing their researching and findings so they can be critiqued and tested. No, you wont find that happening.

    * Darwin, if I am correct (I will research it more when I get back from lunch) even stated that his evolutionary theory was just that....a theory.*

    Oh great, back to the drawing board. Look pal, in science the term ‘theory’ doesn’t mean a hunch or wild guess, it means it’s a model, which can be used to make falsifiable and predictable tests, and yields results. That is the power of such a theory/model, it allows us to say, ‘ok, we know A, B, and C, are true, so can we test them in a manner to demonstrate X is true or false? It's a form of philosophical reductionism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

    Gravity is a process, as is evolution, and in them there is evidences for them and such evidences make up their science theories. The facts of gravity allow us to form a gravitational theory/model, just like the facts in evolution let us make up an evolutionary theory/model.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I get more and more of a feeling that agentorange is a net-surfing scientist. Thats where all his knowledge comes from, not from a university.

    "The scientific method is a process of continual self-correcting."
    So, in other words, if a rock is dated at 10 billion years old one day, 30,000 years old the next, and 4 million years old, the next...that they are all correct? Or that the last one is?

    And, again, you proved my point about the science gods. Everyone one has to measure up to them. Einstein, with all his genius, second guessed much of what he came up with. Darwin, if I am correct (I will research it more when I get back from lunch) even stated that his evolutionary theory was just that....a theory.
    Leave it up to others to make it something it's not.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    JR,

    You say you’re a biologist, but what evidence is there for this beyond simply your own word? You say you’re a biologist, but man oh man do you lack basic logic to understanding that it’s pretty hard to qualify your statement of a dialog you had with your cohorts.

    *Guess who won all the votes. wasn't you*

    And you can validate this to HOW again? Can you give us their emails or contact numbers so we can verify this indeed occurred and its not merely hearsay? Their names, their credentials and contact info should suffice. Most universities have them readily available, so by all means list them and prove me wrong.

    * fact 1, 2, 3 are the process of evolution*

    There are many more processes than 3. And what of genetic drifting, protein synthesis, these things aren’t random, at least not random in how any possible outcome could happen equally happened compared to all others. No, even with mutations, certain mutations, neutral or harmful for instance, certain ones are more likely to occur than others, it is not purely random where both beneficial and neutral mutations are equally probable.

    Certain outcomes are more favorable to occur like how one is more likely to get a pair than say a royal flush in poker. This means their values aren’t predestined, but all odds aren’t equal, certain outcomes are more probable than others and this is why even a little random process like mutations doesn’t cause the overall process to then be completely random.

    * fact four... as i said given that ANY step in in a process is random the whole process is random.*

    Well, by that logic, ANY deterministic step in a process equally makes the whole process deterministic.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:13 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    got to get back to work, going on vacation fo rthe weekend. I have to many things to wrap up. I word of thought to all Creationist... do not cast your pearls before swine.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    agentorange
    you proved nothing, some of has a life to lead instead of posting all the time. I had experiments coming out of my ears yesterday and a fellowship at some friends house. And, as the good scientist I am. I went around to several scientist here at Purdue and presented our arguments to them. Guess who won all the votes. wasn't you.
    Fact one....mutations are random
    fact two.... events leading to selection are random
    fact three selection is directional(deterministic)
    fact 1, 2, 3 are the process of evolution
    fact four... as i said given that any step in in a process is random the whole process is random.

    Message I will leave you with some of my fellow colleagues said.
    If you believe the process of evolution is deterministic you yourself must believe in Creationism as its fundamentalist view in which God still has an active hand in each process today, or you think as I said before you must believe that organisms have an unknowing intuition and can make themselves mutate because the magically know an event is going to take place.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    *Agentorange, you do not know what you are talking about.*

    yeah, you're one to talk.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorange, you do not know what you are talking about.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *As I said, there's no use presenting the facts. You won't see*

    Try me, try posting that has articles actually behind it. Posting something from creationwiki which isn't backed by a single article is't what I'd call *evidence* or a fact, but to you I guess this is? Hmmmm, a Wiki which users articles to supports its claims, or creationwiki which doesn't.

    http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating_problems

    Not a single linked article there. and you think that is fact for something?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *I wish you would see how easily readings*

    The scientific method is a process of continual self-correcting.

    *And yes, if a Christian scientist only agrees with the science gods of Ken Miller and Francis Collins then they are truly scientists. Right?*

    Science gods? Oh I see, b/c they are reputable and very well respected in their fields and belivers, suddenly your whole crack pot conspiracy idea becomes a little hollow. They are scientists b/c they review the latest findings in their fields, critique them and submit their own ideas as published articles and books for continual peer review despite most published articles not being published immediately and even then they are always open to critique as new evidence is found and testing is performed.

    Are Ken Hamm, Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, degreed in anything in Science? Didn’t think so. What have they contributed to the arena of science, anything, EVER?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    As I said, there's no use presenting the facts. You won't see. It's a hopeless cause.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    * But when you get into the real world, and you have the ability to search for yourself and a person discovers something that goes against secularlist thinking, they are branded as idiots, even though they have the facts before them.*

    Just what universe are you living in pal? Every single court case in which creationists have presented their *facts*, they have been shown time and again to be wrong. Dover was just the latest case of this, and why do you suppose this is? Why can’t creationist even levy their *special creation* facts in courts? Maybe b/c they are baseless, could that be it? Might it be that many of the so called *facts* to which they hold dear are nothing of the sort? Yes, today’s YEC’s are like Flat Earther’s of yesteryear, like Alchemists and followers of geocentricism of years past.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And yes, if a Christian scientist only agrees with the science gods of Ken Miller and Francis Collins then they are truly scientists. Right?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And yes, if a Christian scientist only agrees with the science gods of Ken Miller and Francis Collins then they are truly scientists. Right?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And yes, if a Christian scientist only agrees with the science gods of Ken Miller and Francis Collins then they are truly scientists. Right?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I wish you would see how easily readings (regardless of what process you use) can be corrupted.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links