Don’t trust the snakes!

I once read a post written by a person who called himself a “Christian rationalist.”  I normally would link to the post but I can’t find the original post anymore.  It doesn’t really matter, though, because what he said is something I hear all the time by other Christians.  Here’s what this person had to say about creationism:

Believe me, I know; kids aren't stupid, and know a specious argument when they hear it. If (in essence) they're being told that "The Flintstones" represents real and true history (that is, dinosaur/human cohabitation, etc), and that all they are watching on the History or Discovery channels is a sinister secular conspiracy to do away with God, then it's no wonder they fall away from the faith. 

His solution was, “freely endorsing a harmony between modern Science and a grounded Christian faith.”  I find his solution curious.  What does he mean by “a grounded Christian faith”? Grounded in what? Grounded in science? That can't be right. Which is the greater authority: “science” (that is, the opinion of men who admit they only consider natural explanations for anything) or the Bible? I would say that Christianity can only be grounded if it is built on the Bible. I remind you of Romans 10:17 which says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” What other foundation can there be? And I believe the plain words of the Bible cannot be “harmonized” with a belief in evolution.

Why is there a sense of urgency among Christians to “reconcile” the plain words of the Bible with a corrupt theory, devised by finite men, whose stated premise is that miracles never happen?  Why do some Christians think they’re doing God a favor by watering down His words to make them more palatable?  In John 6, when Jesus told the crowds that He was the true Bread who has come down from heaven and only those who ate of this bread would live forever, v. 66 says that many of His disciples turned back and stopped following Him.  Jesus asked the Twelve if they would leave too, to which Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (v. 68).  

You see, the truth sometimes offends people.  So do we speak the truth or do we only speak what’s popular?  People like the Christian rationalist above seem to think that, since the truth might drive some people away, we need to mix it with a little bit of the world.  Tsk, tsk.

Christians who compromise on Genesis often believe they are making Christianity more appealing to the masses. Maybe it does – but only by removing the omnipotent God who is the object of our worship and replacing Him with an impotent god who is a slave to the physical laws he supposedly created and is indistinguishable from dumb luck.  To an evolutionist, believing God guides evolution is akin to saying gravity is accomplished by angels dragging the planets in their courses. Christians gain no credibility with unbelievers by trying to impose godless theories onto the Scriptures.

People who adhere to evolutionary theory, see it as a slow, clumsy, wasteful, and cruel process.  To them, to say God created by using evolution actually diminishes the character of God.  It makes Him seem capricious or indifferent.  Consider this quote from the infamous atheist, Richard Dawkins:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. 

Do you see what I mean?  I’m not exaggerating, not in the least.  Christians understand the world was created “very good,” but was corrupted by sin and cursed by His judgment.  Unbelievers don’t see it that way.  To them, a god who would create through evolution is literally a monster!  Just read what some devout evolutionists believe about the Creator (I’ve added bold for emphasis):

The obvious implication is that THE DESIGNER OF LIFE IS INCOMPETENT. We all know it; no amount of gushing over how "perfect" life is can cover up the fact that everything here can be improved upon. Let's stop making up excuses and admit that the Creator did a half-assed job. 

Julian Bolinger

...It makes sense if every feature of an organism is the product of its history, but it doesn't make sense if you want to argue independent design with appropriate reuse of common elements. Unless, that is, you're willing to argue that the Designer is wasteful, incompetent, and lazy. 

Talk Origins Feedback

Another problem when considering a designer in nature is that of disuse or elimination of parts of the design. I must ask myself why a designer would go to the trouble of creating a certain model of living organism, only to have that organism, over time, throw away much of the creative handiwork. Many parasitic organisms have done just this. ¶Evolutionary theory provides answers to such questions. I can't seem to find satisfactory answers anywhere else. 

Talk Origins Feedback

Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint...  In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better. 

Talk Origins “Jury Rigged Design”

If we conclude that living organisms are designed, and we know that some of these organisms reproduce by laying eggs within a living organism, so that their newly-hatched young can quite literally eat the helpless creature from the inside out, how can we infer that the designer of this system is a kind and benevolent one? 

Talk Origins, The Nature of the Designer

I guess the "Biblical Creator" in his infinite wisdom could not design eyes any better than natural selection could. 

Talk Origins, Cretinism or Evilution?

These are but a few of hundreds of quotes I could provide.  It escapes me why so many Christians will associate themselves with such devout God-haters.   The people who claim you can believe in God and evolution must themselves believe in some other god – not the God of the Bible. If evolution were true, then the god of evolution would be a clumsy, incompetent, lazy, moronic creator who couldn’t create his way out of a wet paper bag. He is not the all-powerful Creator who spoke the universe into existence. 

It reminds me of the poem/song by Oscar Brown, Jr.

On her way to work one morning

Down the path ‘longside the lake

A tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake

His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew

“Oh well,” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”

(Refrain)

“Take me in, tender woman

Take me in, for heaven’s sake

Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk

And laid him by thе fireside with some honеy and some milk

She hurried home from work that night, and soon as she arrived

She found that pretty snake she’d taken in had been revived

(Refrain)

She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful,” she cried

“But if I hadn’t brought you in, by now you might have died”

She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight

Instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite

(Refrain)

“I saved you,” cried the woman

“And you’ve bitten me, but why?

And you know your bite is poisonous and now I’m gonna die”

“Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin

“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in”

(Refrain)

The theory of evolution is antithetical to the gospel.  We need to speak the truth without being embarrassed or worried about who we might offend.  We do not need a bigger tent if it means we must compromise on the word of God.  Stay on the strait and narrow way.  Christians need to stop appealing to the snakes!  

The worst example ever of “evolution in action”

Photo is AI and not part of the study

I hear evolutionists say all the time that “we see evolution happening.” When they say that, they don’t mean we see all life having descended from a supposed common ancestor. They don't mean we see one kind of animal becoming another kind of animal (i.e. reptiles becoming birds). They mean to say we see natural selection occurring all the time. But since they call both “evolution,” they blur the distinction between the two. Here’s an example from Sciencedaily:

Countering the widespread view of evolution as a process played out over the course of eons, evolutionary biologists have shown that natural selection can turn on a dime -- within months -- as a population's needs change. In a study of island lizards exposed to a new predator, the scientists found that natural selection dramatically changed direction over a very short time, within a single generation, favoring first longer and then shorter hind legs.

Notice how they change from saying evolution to natural selection in the same sentence! Tsk, Tsk.  Because of the careless way these terms are often used, people sometimes become confused about their meanings. What's worse is that textbooks will oftentimes present examples of natural selection as evidence for evolution. 

Regardless, let me start by saying this has got to be the worst example of evolution that I've seen. If it weren't in Sciencedaily, I would have thought it was a joke. For being zealous evolutionists, they don’t seem to understand their own theory very well. You see, individuals don’t evolve – populations evolve. It’s supposed to be “descent with modification.”  It’s supposed to be a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.  Yet here they are talking about changes “within a single generation.”  It’s a stretch to even call it natural selection.  

Here’s the gist of the Sciencedaily’s article. On a group of 12 islands, there were indigenous lizards that had no predators. On 6 of the islands, scientists introduced a larger, predatory lizard that would eat the smaller ones. To escape being eaten, the smaller lizards would climb into trees and bushes. After 6 months, scientists compared the smaller lizards on the 6 islands with the predators to the smaller lizards on the 6 predator free islands; lo and behold the lizards on the islands with the predators had shorter legs than those on the islands without predators. It seems those with shorter legs were better able to climb and escape being eaten. Now, I ask you: is this evolution?

Suppose I have a population of mice – some white, some gray. Being the heartless soul that I am (just ask any of my critics) I want to see if this population can evolve so I do an experiment and kill every gray mouse. Wow, it’s true! Evolution does happen! I now have a population of white mice in only one generation!  Who in their right mind would consider this evidence of anything?

Now back to the lizards: on the islands with the predators, the lizards that climbed well (short-legged ones) survived and those that climbed poorly (long-legged ones) were eaten. After 6 months, there are more short-legged lizards left. Duh! I hope these scientists aren’t getting a government grant for this stuff because I’d hate to see my tax dollars supporting such a sophomoric experiment. If they had said that the lizards had sprouted wings and flew off the island, then they might have my attention. But this is ridiculous.

But wait…. there’s more! The short-legged lizards are more likely to produce short-legged offspring. So, the future population will more likely be shorter-legged than the previous population (this would better fit the definition of descent with modification). The researchers said however, “Evolutionary biology is by its nature an historical science, but the combination of microevolutionary experimentation and macroevolutionary historical analysis can provide a rich understanding about the genesis of biological diversity” [emphasis added]. 

In case you miss the irony let me point it out. The researchers believe this process leads to “biological diversity.” Did it not occur to them that the daughter population (containing only short-legged lizards) is less diverse than the parent population (containing long-legged and short-legged lizards)?

Let me leave you with one last quote; in response to the complaint that evolution has never been observed, Talkorigins.org says the following:

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.  [emphasis added]

So, it is this kind of change (long and short legged lizards) that evolutionists claim is all that is required for common descent to occur. Somehow, removing traits from a population can add traits to a population?  That doesn’t make any sense.  It’s like saying I could turn a molehill into a mountain by removing dirt - I just have to do it long enough!

I’ve already pointed out (here) that natural selection is when animals LOSE traits (like the lizard population losing the trait of long legs in this example). Evolution requires animals to ACQUIRE traits (such as dinosaurs acquiring feathers to become birds). If you want to prove to me that evolution happens, I want to see animals acquiring traits. Stop showing me natural selection and calling it evolution. It's certainly not "evolution in action!"

Convergent evolution - Lightning striking again and again and again!

There’s a common saying that lightning never strikes twice in the same place.  That’s not literally true.  When people say it, they mean if something improbable happens, it likely won’t happen again.  The odds of anyone winning the lottery, for example, are very small.  The same person winning the lottery two times in a row is virtually impossible.  Such a thing might happen in the realm of theoretical statistics, however most people understand that it wouldn’t happen in the real world.  But then again, since when does evolution operate in the real world?!

I’m talking about the idea of convergent evolution.  According to Grokipedia - by the way, I’ve started moving away from the left-leaning Wikipedia - anyway, according to Grokipedia, “Convergent evolution is the process whereby distantly related species independently develop similar traits or characteristics, typically in response to comparable environmental pressures or selective forces.”  In a recent post (here), I discussed how koala fingerprints are indistinguishable from human fingerprints.  Koalas are marsupials, and according to the theory of evolution, marsupial mammals supposedly diverged from placental mammals more than 150 million years ago.  In other words, koalas cannot be “closely related” to humans.  So why do both species share this very unusual characteristic?  Evolutionists claim it’s an example of convergent evolution.  You know, because koalas and humans live in nearly identical environments with all the same selective pressures.  Excuse me while I roll my eyes!

The idea of convergent evolution is little more than a rescue device for evolutionists.  They love, love, love to point out similarities between, say, chimps and humans, and say their similarities are evidence they share a recent common ancestor.  But any similarity between humans and koalas is merely a coincidence - a case of convergent evolution.  Evolutionists can’t see the special pleading in their argument.  In fact, they’ve become so comfortable with the idea of convergent evolution, they wave it around like an end-of-discussion solution anytime traits don’t follow any predictable pattern on the so-called, “tree of life.”  

I’ve discussed the appendix before so let’s start with that.  According to evolution, the appendix evolved in some ancestor of humans and once served an important function (or at least it evolved to serve some function). Since we are descended from this supposed ancestor, we have inherited that structure but, over the many generations of mutation and selection leading from the non-human ancestor to us, the appendix has lost its original function. For this reason, it's sometimes called an “evolutionary leftover.”

Humans are not the only creatures with an appendix. Dozens of mammals have appendixes – but not every mammal.  According to the theory of common descent, we should be able to trace the appendix along the so-called “nested-hierarchy” where all the animals which have an appendix also share a common ancestor. The problem is, there is no predictable pattern among the mammals with appendixes. The appendix appears in some species of primates, rodents, and even marsupials but is absent from the intermediate groups linking these species. It's not at all what we would expect if evolution were true.

Failed predictions are usually considered evidence against a scientific theory. However, the fact that the presence of the appendix follows no predictable pattern hardly raises an eyebrow among evolutionists. As is often the case, they invent ad hoc theories to explain the failed prediction. Here is a quote from Sciencemag.org:

In a new study, published online... in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times. [Bold added]

So let me get this straight: The appendix appears in no discernible pattern on the so-called “tree of life” which calls into question the entire concept of common descent. They try to say it evolved independently in all these different species but why would the selective pressures that drive convergent evolution create a similar organ over and over, when most creatures that have one don't need it?!  

Next, let’s talk about the eye.  In his infamous book, Darwin said this about the eye (source):

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. 

Of course, Darwin still believed the eye was evolved and went on to describe how evolution, by gradual steps, could produce such a remarkably complex organ.  However, Richard Dawkins, in his book, River out of Eden, had this to say about the eye:

[T]he time needed for the evolution of the eye... turned out to be too short for geologists to measure! It's a geological blink." And, "it is no wonder the eye has evolved at least forty times independently around the animal kingdom 

There are many, many creatures in the animal kingdom that have eyes.  I’ve written before (here) about the similarity between human eyes and those of an octopus.  Both creatures exist in radically different environments and are not supposed to be closely related according to evolution.  They are examples of what Dawkins was talking about, one of dozens of examples where the eye has evolved independently in different creatures.   But do you see the shift in tone from Darwin to Dawkins?  Darwin claims the eye is so complex it seems a wonder how it could have evolved, to Dawkins saying it’s so easy it happens all the time!

Finally, there is the topic of abiogenesis.  The odds of random chemicals coming together to create life are astonishingly small.  We’ve never observed it happen.  We’ve never been able to create life artificially in a lab, despite decades of trying.  However, evolutionists argue that in such a large universe even something very improbable will eventually happen.  Carl Sagan once said this: 

“... [T]he time available for the origin of life seems to have been short, a few hundred million years at the most. Since life originated on the earth, we have additional evidence that the origin of life has a high probability.” 

Convinced that there is a high probability of the origin of life, then it's no great leap to imagine that other life began in space as well. His faith in extra-terrestrial life inspired groups like SETI to search for signs of life beyond our planet. Today, with NASA’s interest in exploring Mars, people speculate that life could have evolved on Mars as well.  So even though we’ve NEVER observed abiogenesis, evolutionists suffer under the delusion it happens everywhere. 

Evolutionists are somewhat cavalier about what is credible. They waive the term “convergent evolution” around and suddenly the impossible becomes commonplace. A fully functioning eye evolving from a light sensitive spot on the skin?  No problem!  Life springing from non-living matter? Happens all the time!  

As was said at the start of this post, people in the real world know the odds of any improbable event happening twice is highly unlikely.  Evolutionists, on the other hand, would have us believe that lightning strikes in the area of the improbable like a timpani! 

It’s proof, except when it isn’t!

An evolutionist posted this picture on FaceBook with the question, “Why do you think they are so similar?”  His point was obvious: chimp fingerprints resemble human fingerprints because chimps and humans are related.  At least that’s the point he seemed to be making - and every evolutionist who replied on the thread pretty much echoed the same thing.  Somehow, this similar trait is proof, or at least it’s evidence, that chimps have an evolutionary relationship with humans.  They share a recent, common ancestor.

I guess the similarity could be explained by being related but is it necessarily the result of being closely related?  That’s where the evolutionary explanation becomes a little fuzzy.  Creationists sometimes explain the similarity could just as easily be the product of design.  A tricycle, for example, has similarities to a bicycle but the similarity can’t be the result of evolution.  

When I bring up the “evidence for a common Designer” rebuttal, evolutionists usually cry foul.  They say created things aren’t analogous because they can’t reproduce.  Um, that’s sort of the whole point, isn’t it? I mean, because they’re created, then the similarity between 2 things cannot be the product of evolution but was intentionally made by the design.  It’s because they’re created that makes it a good analogy!  

Even when I explain the point of the analogy, evolutionists refuse to concede it.  They merely repeat the “created things don’t reproduce” argument like it’s some sort of mic drop moment.  OK then, if you don’t like my analogy of created things, how about this: why are koala fingerprints so similar to human fingerprints?  

/// Mic drop ///

You see, evolutionists claim chimp and human fingerprints are somehow evidence for a close, evolutionary relationship.  But koalas are marsupials.  Marsupials supposedly diverged from placental mammals between 157-170 million years ago.  Koalas cannot be closely related to humans in the evolutionary sense.  They certainly are not as closely related as humans and chimps are alleged to be.  Yet koala fingerprints are virtually identical to human fingerprints.  According to one PBS article: 

As a biological anthropologist and forensic scientist, Henneberg knew this made koalas unique, the only non-primates with fingerprints. "It appears that no one has bothered to study them in detail," he told The Independent in 1996, shortly before publishing a journal article announcing the find. Henneberg’s research indicated that not even careful analysis under a microscope could help distinguish the loopy, whirling ridges on koalas' fingers from our own. The fingerprints were so similar to humans’ that he worried they could easily be mixed up by detectives. 

As is always the case, when similar features appear in different species that aren’t supposed to be closely related, evolutionists attribute the similarity to “convergent evolution.”  In the same PBS article we read:

[O]ur last common ancestor with koalas was, by some calculations, more than 100 million years ago, when marsupials split off from the rest of mammals. So how did we come to share this particular trait? The answer is what’s called “convergent evolution,” when unrelated organisms evolve identical characteristics in response to similar evolutionary pressures.  

So let me get this straight: our fingerprints are similar to chimps’  because we share a recent common ancestor but our fingerprints are similar to koalas’ by sheer coincidence.  Do I have that right?  Scientific theories are supposed to be useful in explaining things.  When observing similar structures in different animals, they could be explained by those animals having a recent, common ancestor… or not. 

A theory that could explain anything really explains nothing.  If similar features aren’t necessarily the result of having a recent common ancestor then they cannot be evidence of having a common ancestor.  Never!  Evolutionists have to resort to different explanations of how similar features evolved in different species, yet they still claim both observations support their theory.  It’s laughable.  No, seriously, it’s a total joke.

Their unbelief is a belief!

I’ve said many times that atheists play word games.  Specifically, they like to redefine terms in their favor.  Evolution, for example, doesn’t mean what most people think it means - “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.”   No.  They say it means, “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”  They get really upset when you don’t use the same definitions as they do, like they’re the Word Czars or something.  

One word they have consistently redefined is atheist.  Most people define an atheist as someone who doesn’t believe in God or someone who believes there is no God.  Am I right?  However, just like the word evolution, atheists get in a huff when you don’t define atheist the same way they do.  They claim an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God.  In other words, they say they’re not trying to make any claim about the existence of God; they’re just expressing their lack of belief in Him.  Hmmm.  Something about that doesn’t sound right.

First, there’s already a word to describe when people are unsure about the existence of God; it’s called agnosticism.  How is the atheists’ twisted definition of atheism substantially different from agnosticism?  There must be a reason they prefer using such a vague definition rather than adopting the already existing term.  I’ve asked many and they usually try to draw the distinction that agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known, while they simply lack a belief that He exists.  It sounds like a case of splitting hairs.  

When people resort to equivocating over the meanings of words, they begin to open themselves up to contradiction.  Do they know God doesn’t exist?  Do they only think He doesn’t exist?  Do they admit He might exist?  Why do they object when people say He does exist?  You can see the difficulty with their position.  They want to attack theism without having to defend their position.

Frank Turek has used this analogy to expose the weakness of the modern definition of atheism: There are two detectives investigating a murder.  There are fingerprints, DNA, and a murder weapon that all point to one suspect.  Detective A is certain the suspect is guilty.  Detective B looks at the same facts and says he doesn’t believe the suspect is guilty.  So Detective A asks, “Then what about the gun, the blood, the fingerprints, and all the other evidence?  How do you explain all that?”  Detective B only replies, “I don’t have to explain it.  I just don’t believe it’s him.”  

I know it’s not a perfect analogy, but do you see the comparison?  You can show an atheist all the evidence we have for God: we can discuss the historical certainty of Jesus, we can point to the ontological necessity of a supernatural First Cause, we can appeal to the existence of absolute morality, and the atheist can just sit cross armed saying, “That’s not enough.”  He offers no rebuttal, he doesn’t concede an inch, he simply just doesn’t believe.  In the case of the detectives, there is a dead body and there is evidence that points to one suspect; why should we not consider what is possibly the most likely explanation?  Likewise, why should we deny the plausible explanation that God created everything and default to the incredible belief that nothing created everything?

Psalm 19:1 says, The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.  When I look at the starry night and see the grandeur of the universe, I consider its complexity, design, and beauty.  Knowing that God created it doesn’t end scientific inquiry; rather it makes me wonder more.  It tells me something about God.  I understand the cause of the universe must be something outside of the universe, something “supernatural” by definition.  God is the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover that Aristotle argued must exist.  He must be greater than all burning stars.  He must be eternal and timeless, to have created time.  He must be omniscient and personal, to have created the mind and consciousness.  Knowing God exists helps me to make sense of the universe.

Everyone has a worldview.  There is a method by which we see the world and make sense of it.  For someone to deny that God is behind the universe, he must necessarily believe that nature is all there is.  They may claim they don’t believe God created everything, but they don’t have any alternative explanation.  They must necessarily believe in some other “undivine” creator.  They may claim God isn’t the moral Lawgiver, but they must have some basis to believe something is right or wrong.  They acknowledge how things are but will not consider why they are.  When they do consider how and why anything exists, they intentionally ignore what could be the most likely explanation. 

The problem for the atheists is their disbelief is actually their belief.   They pretend to be blank slates looking at the evidence but are committed to naturalism.  They somehow think it’s more intellectual to assume nothing created everything than God having created everything.  

In closing, read these telling words of Richard Lewontin:

Evolutionists ... have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.