Tom, you do know that the scientists at State College had e-mails purloined that showed that they were in the process of devising arguments to mask facts contrary to the global warming theory. This is how science is conducted today. It’s mostly agenda-driven politics. I’d LOVE to see private e-mail exchanges between naturalists. I’ll bet they would show the same shading of results. I mean, look at recent ancestor hoaxes, which were so ridiculous that not even fellow evos could abide them. Yet, they are so desperate to deny God that major magazines treated these "spurious “finds” as important.
Rob
This is just a fabrication of the professional (and criminal) denialist machine. There is absolutely nothing in those 1000s of emails spanning many many years that indicates global warming is a hoax or fabrication. For those who would like the correct story, read Mann’s THE HOCKEY STICK AND THE CLIMATE WARS. One main point is that even if all of that tree-ring data were false (and they are not), anthropogenic global warming rests on other rock-solid science, and is no longer in dispute among practicing climate scientists. Whether we decide to reduce our GHG emissions (and other concomitant pollution) so as to reduce harm to people and God’s creation, that is up to us.
Same with evolution. It’s been well accepted in science many decades, and the evidence is so strong now, that it would be a huge twist to try and deny it.
As an anthropologist who is sensitive to people’s religious beliefs, I used to tell students they didn’t have to believe in evolution, but just learn it for the test. I would also explain that I actually first learned about evolution in Presbyterian Sunday school in the 50s (I think they figured we’d be learning about it in school and wanted to give it religious meaning); and that I’ve never had any trouble believing in God, being a religious person, and accepting evolution, and how it in fact made me all the more full of awe of God.
But then I started thinking about how lying is a sin, and when the science is really in on something, it would be a lie to turn away and not accept the science. So I’ve added onto what I tell students, that as a Christian I’ve come to understand that believing in creationism and/or intelligent design and rejecting evolution is perhaps a sin, and is probably a great insult to God, that we see Him as some David Copperfield magician, far short of His greatness and majesty.
As a person who also teaches mythology, I understand that the ancients were trying to understand the world as best they could, they were doing their science (and theology combined), and it makes sense if we have no knowledge of modern science. I respect their insights within their time periods.
God inspired the Bible, and the writers/tellers of it did the best they could within their knowledge frameworks (maybe God even told them about evolution, but it was just so awesome they just didn’t have the framework to get it right).
But God wrote another Bible directly – creation, from which we can learn. And science is like exigesis. We should in humility respect what the scientists are telling us, even though their “truths” are subject to change and correction with better evidence and theories. God is Truth, and we do well not to turn away from science and knowledge we gain from our God-given abilities.
But, I have always been amazed at the amazing similarity of the human cell and the plant cell. (Actually, any cell from any living organism will do for this example.)
but, still… maybe we could be talking about the differences between a 3-dimensional sphere and a 2-dimensional circle - both are round. And, given all the possible shapes out there - and all living organisms share this trait - I find it an interesting association. I see a much closer association between the vestigial bones you mentioned and cell similarities.
Rob