Why I reject Darwin
I had a discussion with a co-worker earlier this week in which he said that my preference for Intelligent Design was pure "blind faith in an old book" rather than science. Actually I am quite fond of science when it is not blinded by ideology. I pointed out to him that humans have 46 chromosomes while apes have 48. The number of chromosomes had to change by eliminating a pair (which according to the link, was done by fusing two pair in the apes, something that to my knowledge has never been observed in nature.) Regardless of how it happened, a new species had to be made by eliminating a pair of chromosomes; which is something that we have never seen happen. It had to happen not just once, but twice, to a male and female of the same species, who had exactly the same new chromosome pattern and were born close enough together in time and space to mate and produce enough offspring to remain viable. A pro Intelligent Design group called IDEA has much more to say about this on one of their pages, though I do think some of their thoughts on this page are rather pointless.
Another question is eggs. It is common knowledge that amphibians lay eggs in water while reptiles lay eggs on land and that neither type of egg can survive in the other medium. Now if amphibians developed into reptiles, it means their eggs had to change too. One of two things had to happen. If it happened in a single generation, than the females had to lay those eggs on land, which would have gone against their instincts, or there had to be intermediate egg that could survive in either medium; the problem there is that such an egg would have a great survival boon and, under the idea of survival of the fittest, would it not have continued to this present day? Does any vertabrate lay an egg that can survive in either water or dry air?
I have no problem with life on this earth being billions of years old and having once contained species that are no longer here, but random events leading to the evolution of man defies even common sense.
Another question is eggs. It is common knowledge that amphibians lay eggs in water while reptiles lay eggs on land and that neither type of egg can survive in the other medium. Now if amphibians developed into reptiles, it means their eggs had to change too. One of two things had to happen. If it happened in a single generation, than the females had to lay those eggs on land, which would have gone against their instincts, or there had to be intermediate egg that could survive in either medium; the problem there is that such an egg would have a great survival boon and, under the idea of survival of the fittest, would it not have continued to this present day? Does any vertabrate lay an egg that can survive in either water or dry air?
I have no problem with life on this earth being billions of years old and having once contained species that are no longer here, but random events leading to the evolution of man defies even common sense.
posted by shoprat at 12:26 PM
3 Comments:
According to Romans 5:12, sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin. Romans 6:26 states that the wages of sin is death. Now if there was no death before sin--since death is the result of sin--how could there have been billions of years of creatures dying before Adam's transgression?
I emphasize to my kids that the things we don't have proof of are theory. I make sure that they learn to question EVERYTHING.
It's disappointing to me how many people on both sides of this debate give up questioning and choose one side over the other. (Or never question at all.)
If you look around, you can find SCIENTIFIC evidence to support both views.
I also believe that the existence of God will never be proven by man. It can't be verified. Nor can it be unproven.
Belief in God requires a leap of faith... and that is not scientific.
Oh, and for another view see Dinosaurs and the Bible. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
I like your blog. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home