Can God and Darwin Fit Together?

People like Hugh Ross, Greg Neyman and Walter Kaiser, Jr. think they can manipulate and reinterpret Scripture to fit secular explanations for the origin of the Universe. Some call that aligning Scripture with the evidence. Others call it "politically correct". People like me would call that "compromise". (See Refuting Compromise (Dr. Jonathan Sarfati))

So what's wrong with theistic evolution? Let's go over my main points, and I'll expand:

• It doesn't fit the evidence
• It's reinterpreting Scripture, undermining its authority
• It doesn't fit God's character

Point 1) It doesn't fit the evidence

I've posted many, many articles regarding the problems with a secular explanation of the origin of the Universe (Big Bang and naturalistic evolution) in my Google+ community Biblical Creation Apologetics (you can see the evidence here). All that applies to theistic evolution as well. If the secular explanation is refuted, then compromise is destroyed as well. Theistic evolution is essentially the neo-Darwinian synthesis with a "God" sticker slapped onto it (I always illustrate it that way when I'm talking to theistic evolutionists).

Point 2) It's reinterpreting Scripture, undermining its authority

Where in the Bible does it say millions of years? And when did death and suffering begin? These questions stumped prominent theistic evolutionist Hugh Ross. Sure, the Bible doesn't specifically say 6,000 years either, but biblical chronology and biblical bloodlines only stretch as far back as 6,000 years. Also, when Jesus referred to Genesis, He interpreted it in a literal sense (see Jesus on the age of the earth). Therefore, Jesus Himself refuted day-age creationists. 

Furthermore, since the theistic evolution theory requires guided natural selection (kind of an oxymoron, if you ask me), then death is required. And if it took millions of years of death and adaptation to produce humankind, then how did death come before Adam? If you recall from the Genesis account, death occurred after Adam sinned. So how did death occur before Adam? Also, fossils of thorns were found in rock layers before we see human fossils. And if the rocks at the bottom are older than the ones on top (according to evolutionary thinking), then how did thorns appear before Adam (thorns are also the result of Adam's fall)? No theistic evolutionist has answered these questions. All Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser did was dodge the question in their debate against Ken Ham and Jason Lisle. Watch this video (or just listen to it, it's just audio):

Point 3) It doesn't fit God's character

Why would God put some bacteria on a blown-up planet and leave them to develop on its own? Why would He use millions of years of mutations and death to produce us? If He were to demonstrate His power, wouldn't He have just created us much faster? Theistic evolution just doesn't fit God's character. God wouldn't leave us to evolve on our own, because He loves and cares for us, and He would take care in designing His creation. He wouldn't use millions of years of mutations and death because He intended us to be perfect, blameless, and immortal. God wouldn't take millions of years to create us because that would fail to show His creative power.

At the end of the day, theistic evolution fails. It fails because it doesn't fit the evidence, it's unscriptural, and it doesn't fit God's character. So no, God and Darwin cannot fit together. Refuting theistic evolutionists is relatively easy. Just point out how it's unscriptural, point to the evidence, and their belief is destroyed. You can use these tips for your next debate with them. Tune in tomorrow for my next blog: How Evolution Fails to Explain Ethics & Morality!

A Tale of Two Forms

The search for missing links has gone on for decades. If paleontologists have been looking for them for that long, you'd expect them to come back with boat-loads of transitional forms. But you haven't. So where are they?

You were probably indoctrinated with the notion that Archaeopteryx was the transition from reptiles to birds, but that is not the case. "But it had feathers, a wishbone, and asymmetrical feathers. This shows it was part bird. It also had teeth, claws on its wings, and bones it its tail, all of which birds lack, but reptiles have." I can see how this can be evidence for evolution, but my view is that these features make it a "mosaic" of both animal groups, as CMI puts it (but it resembles a bird so much that it might as well be an actual bird). Also, there are no fossils showing the transition between scale and feather. In fact, there are no fossil links in the fossil record connecting it to birds or reptiles. "True" birds were actually found below the place where Archaeopteryx was found, and according to Darwinists, lower fossils mean older fossils.  Furthermore, the way its neck was found indicates that it drowned (possibly in a global flood!). See Archaeopteryx‎ and Archaeopteryx is a Bird

You may have heard of Australopithecus afarensis, also known as Lucy. She is supposed to be the ancestor of mankind. But get this: her hips were modified to look like human hips. Also, the hand bones were never found, so we can't even conclude if her hands were "human-like". Most scientists now conclude that she was actually a type of pygmy chimp. Watch this video:

See also: A Look at Lucy's Legacy, Evolution's Hall of Shame, and Lucy's Hips.

I've only listed two (famous) "transitional forms", but if you have any other missing links that you want me to cover, or if you have questions, comment below! Also, tomorrow I will be discussing theistic evolution!

A Report on the Hominid "Nutcracker Man"

I recently read an article in the NY Times regarding the so-called "Nutcracker Man", aka East Africa Man, or Zinjanthropus boisei (Nutcracker Man's Secret: He Didn't Crack Nuts). The article talked about how they were planning on modifying a trait connoted to the hominid: that it did not in fact crack nuts. But what they didn't include: Zinjanthropus boisei was to be reclassified as an australopithecine, a genus in which Lucy is classified. And we know for a fact that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was not a human ancestor, but a type of extinct pygmy chimp. Therefore, "Nutcracker Man" is really just a type of extinct chimp, and the tools found with it may have just been tools used on them, rather than tools that it itself used. See: Who was 'Nutcracker Man'?

More information on the mythology of "human ancestors" will be posted tomorrow.

A Tetrapodal "Missing Link" Re-evaluated

GMA News declares: "Ancient legged fish provides missing link in limb evolution" (See Ancient legged fish provides missing link in limb evolution). For a while now, evolutionists claim that a fish evolved into a land-dwelling tetrapod. But how did they acquire this ability to walk?

Here's the evolutionary theory in a nutshell:

• A fish crawls onto land
• Realizing that it can't breathe air, it goes back into the water
• Some time later, the fish tries the same thing
• The same result happens
• The process repeats for millions of years until lungs and fins develop

You see, the evolutionary process can only give one trait at a time. Any more than that would be punctuated equilibrium, or the belief that evolution happens in sudden jumps in traits. But evolution in that sense is mathematically impossible!

A more rational explanation to the origin of land-dwelling animals is an intelligent design. A supernatural Creator must have created land-dwellers with both lungs and legs, at the same time.

Furthermore, the fossil's legs could've been used underwater, not necessarily for walking on land. Fish such as rosy-lipped batfish do this. Neil Shubin, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago even said:

The people who discovered the new "missing link" aren't even consistent with their views on their "treasure".

Tune in tomorrow for my next blog!

The Big Bang Theory: A Review

Many people believe in that a Big Bang gave rise to the Universe. Others believe that a supernatural Creator designed it. Which theory is true? Let's review the facts:

• The Universe is very fine-tuned
• There is order in the Universe
• There is space, matter, time, energy, etc.

Now which theory best explains what we have here?

Big Bang theory

• Two particles appear out of nowhere, collide, and cause a massive explosion
• The explosion hurls matter across space
• Gravity pulls matter together into round lumps; planets, moons and stars form, including planet Earth

Creation model

• "God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1)
• God made a fine-tuned Universe
• God caused order
• God made space, matter, time, energy, etc.

If one were rational, s/he would say, "The creation model makes more sense." Why? Because why and how would an explosion cause order? Where did those particles originate? How did it create time, energy, space, etc? It would male more sense to believe that an intelligent Designer created the Universe.

But how do we know that it was the Judeo-Christian God that created the Universe? For one thing, the Bible clearly states that "God [Himself] created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Also, all the other gods of other religions are not true gods, but idols (more on this tomorrow). Thirdly, all evidence points to original good design by a good God.

Tune in tomorrow for my next blog!

From Nothing to Everything: Refuting Krauss on the Origin of Everything

The Big Bang - Evolution always comes to nothing. 

Some refuse to believe in God and put all their faith in scientific theories. They accept the "theory of evolution" because they cannot accept the Bible's version that man and the universe appeared from nothing. But how can something come from nothing? It must have an origin. Evolutionary thinking desperately tries to link one life form with another under the premise - given enough time, anything can happen. However, on the scientific journey to link all life, the question must be asked: How did the first life originate on our lifeless planet? Did it pop up from nothing, or did it arrive on some cosmic taxi? 
If it is suggested first life arrived from another planet, the question then arises: Where did life on that planet originate? Continued questioning will reach the point of asking: Where did the first source of life originate? There are only two conclusions:

1. it has always been there without beginning, or
2. there was nothing and suddenly there was something. This is the dilemma of the origin of the universe. It either never had a start (infinite past), or there was nothing and suddenly there was something (a Big Bang).

Isn't it odd then, that some cannot believe in an infinite God who created the universe from nothing; but instead would rather accept that our infinitely complex universe (which the human finite mind cannot possibly comprehend), designed itself from a Big Bang (0 = 1). We should question putting faith in scientific theories which refuse to accept that something may originate from nothing - and yet start their original premise with a Big Bang. Evolution is simply the belief that in the beginning there was nothing – the nothing exploded and gradually created everything. (Genesis 1:1)

More on the evidence for such a Creator will be posted tomorrow.