In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

[lynnvinc]

I don’t understand your differentiating ID from theistic evolution, could you clarify that?

I’m thinking God is not an “intelligent designer,” but Intelligence, Truth, Love…

I guess it could be possible that God is some anthropomorphic figure like an “intelligent designer,” but just because God created man in the image of God does not mean that man has created God in his (limited) image. We call God Father, but I’d like to keep a humble and open mind about God and not limit Him to an anthropomophic figure (with a magic wand or finger, white beard, etc).

 

[lynnvinc]

Thank you for the sincere and somewhat measured response, Lynn. I’ve got to tell you, first, that a tiny increase in a trace gas (CO2) is NOT causing global warming or climatic Armageddon. The Vikings lived in Greenland 1000 years ago. It is STILL too cold there to be habitable now. MANY climatologists and meteorologists are skeptical of the rabid Al Gore claims, which he is afraid to debate, BTW.

I defer to the climate scientists for climate science, meterologists for weather reports (tho, as we know, they are often wrong), dentists for dental care, and brain surgeons if God-forbid I need brain surgery. I wouldn’t want dentists doing brain surgery on me.

That there have been warm and extremely warm periods in the past does not disprove anthropogenic global warming today. In fact, it helps to prove it, such as the end-Permain great warming during which 95% of life on earth died, caused by GHGs from Siberian traps extreme volcanism on the single continent of Pangea (tho spewed out over many 1000s of years, not like the GHGs we are spewing out within a couple 100 years of today).

It’s best to defer to the climate scientists (real ones) when trying to understand the AGW of today – they’ve been very helpful and forthright in answering my questions – and to the Church for moral theology re what to do about it, which as JPII said 22 years ago (and BXVI has consistently reaffirmed) is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone’s.

 

[edwest2]

It does glorify Him… for its true.

That’s just not true. Show me where in the Biology textbook that any outside source was required for the process. Answer: there isn’t. Chemicals, prebiotic soup and a little bit of water and poof - man. Give me a break.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I weary of these debates. The Bible is not a book, it is a library, a collection of many different books and different genres of literature. Genesis is NOT the same genre as the gospel of Matthew or the letters of St. Paul!

And to the creationists: do you realize that at this point evolutionary biology is the underpinning of nearly EVERY natural science? Without it our understanding of Virology, Kinetics, physiology, developmental psychology, and dozens of other fields falls apart? Evolutionary biology explains WHOLLY the natural phenomena we see in geologic strata of fossil placement, genetics, anatomy and physiology, and other major areas of research and study, without a single instance of contradictory data. Think about this for a minute: all you need to disprove evolutionary biology is to find ONE example of, say, a Labrador retriever fossil buried in the same layer as a triceratops…and yet this has never happened, not even once…don’t you think that is pretty strong evidence?

And to those who love the reference to the early fathers or Christian teachings, St. Augustine not only did NOT interpret the Genesis creation account in literalist fashion, he urged Christians to be knowledgable about subjects they discuss and to abandon positions that are plainly false to avoid making the faith appear ridiculous to others. Origen also said unequivocally that Genesis was not a literal historical account of creation.

But I’ll say this: if you reject science, be consistent about it at least. Don’t reject the foundation and then get vaccines, the reasons they would purport to have prophylactic benefit are based on Evolutionary biology! Medicines or treatments that were tested on animals first also must go: the only reason testing on, say, chimps, is of benefit for human application is under the assumption a priori that human and chimp biology is closely related by Evolution. Don’t try to have your cake and eat it too. Live like the Amish: at least they are consistent.

Underpinning of what? That’s just not true. A scientist from the National Academy of Sciences:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Edwest2, Skell was a member of the National Academy of Sciences who never published any scientific papers:

Skell, Philip S.
Date of Birth: Dec 30, 1918
Elected to NAS: 1977
Date of Death: Nov 21, 2010

nas.nasonline.org/site/Dir/106315375?pg=vprof&mbr=1005184&returl=http%3A%2F%2Fnas.nasonline.org%2Fsite%2FDir%2F106315375%3Fpg%

I think he was an was a proponent of the Intelligent Design Movement whereas I am not nor am I a creationist.

The National Academy of Science:

How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.

In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including “intelligent design.” The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.

Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource.
nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

You can read the book online from the link above.

Here is what chapter 4 states:

CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION

Science and science-based technologies have transformed modern life. They have led to major improvements in living standards, public welfare, health, and security. They have changed how we view the universe and how we think about ourselves in relation to the world around us.

Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines.

As individuals and societies, we are now making decisions that will have profound consequences for future generations. How should we balance the need to preserve the Earth’s plants, animals, and natural environment against other pressing concerns? Should we alter our use of fossil fuels and other natural resources to enhance the well-being of our descendants? To what extent should we use our new understanding of biology on a molecular level to alter the characteristics of living things?

None of these decisions can be made wisely without considering biological evolution. People need to understand evolution, its role within the broader scientific enterprise, and its vital implications for some of the most pressing social, cultural, and political issues of our time.

Science and technology are so pervasive in modern society that students increasingly need a sound education in the core concepts, applications, and implications of science. Because evolution has and will continue to serve as a critical foundation of the biomedical and life sciences, helping students learn about and understand the scientific evidence, mechanisms, and implications of evolution are fundamental to a high-quality science education.

Science and religion are different ways of understanding. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of both to contribute to a better future.
nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=47

I hope that helps you and other people who might be reading.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m thinking that the real issue might be that many people feel disgust and aversion at the idea of being related to animals – apes, slime, etc…

That’s not my problem with evolution. The lack of logic bothers me.

I’m thinking God is not an “intelligent designer,” but Intelligence, Truth, Love…

I guess it could be possible that God is some anthropomorphic figure like an “intelligent designer,” but just because God created man in the image of God does not mean that man has created God in his (limited) image. We call God Father, but I’d like to keep a humble and open mind about God and not limit Him to an anthropomophic figure (with a magic wand or finger, white beard, etc).

We have many words to describe God, none of which can hope to fully encompass even that part of Him. Would you say that God created everything, that He “designed” it all? If so, then one aspect of Him, however imperfectly capturing His grandeur, is Intelligent Designer.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lynnvinc,

Thank you for the interesting post.

One of the things I have been really concerned about is that there really has been a lot of global warming going on. Historically, there have been quite a few britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/281065/ice-age with the last about 10,000 years ago. The reason why there was this global warming is that the Earth was experiencing periods of glaciation - large glacial sheets that once covered the entire planet. Fortunately, global warming came to the rescue and here we are today.

This mean that inhabited cities could be at risk - and as you look back on fossil finds there was a great in-land sea towards the central west US and Canada … and our coast lines were really quite different. If any one has beachfront property, you may want to consider selling and moving to … well … somewhere futher in-land. And, yes this will cause major problems for many people - to say nothing about farm land and how food will be produced, etc. But, the take home message is all of this happened before man burned the first lump of coal to fire up a steam engine and mass produce something.

My suggestion is that relaxing about man made exhausts CAUSING global warming and consider that this is just one more aspect of Earth’s climate that many have not really appreciated. Stay calm - the sky really isn’t falling, but we do need to consider how we will respond so that we are not caught unawares.

God bless

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.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

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.

I more or less agree (even though I’m probably less appreciative of the actual structure of our universe than you ).

I read the creation account and see a style of storytelling that’s not much different from those of the ancient Norse, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Japanese, Indians or any other mythological culture.

Still to say that God went from that and then suddenly gave us the world that’s the less funny version of F.R.I.E.N.D.S. is indeed a mockery of His glory and power.

From my perspective, I have to doubt that our world was ever as awesome as it is in mythological accounts (Biblical or otherwise). People who insist that it are actually saying that God has a lot to answer for every poor nerd whose daydreams are often dashed by the scientific principles that govern our reality.

 

[Nec5]

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.

If you’re telling your students that, please stop teaching. We have enough people being brainwashed by progressives in education at all levels. Your original approach was at least open minded directing students to think for themselves.

And your assertion that you only turn to experts on any matter is laughable at best. One of the hallmarks of progressive thought is the so called tyranny of the experts in which normal thinking adults cannot make decisions without complete reliance on “authorities”. Experts are to be used, but it is foolish to rely exclusively on them, for they are just as flawed as the rest of us.

Rejecting evolution a sin? Wow. You go from entertaining two views of creation all the way to declaring one of those views sinful. I guess it’s also sinful to believe Moses literally climbed the mountain and received the 10 commandments from God. I guess that’s just an allegory and to believe it literally is an insult to God who inspired the author of that story not to describe an actual event but to paint some moral lesson or greater truth.

It’s just as I predicted earlier in this thread. I’ll tell you what is sinful. Trying to shame people who believe the Old Testament means what it says. Labeling them as somehow foolish, naive, or ignorant is truly sinful. Trying to influence younger less experienced minds to hold that type of snobbish view is even worse and quite frankly scandalous.

As for the Catholic position, it’s clear. You can believe what you will regarding evolution and creation. Since the church’s position is one that does not strike down or reject either view, it seems sinful for any follower to do so, especially in a manner of total derision and pedantry.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Your original approach was at least open minded directing students to think for themselves.

As much as I value thinking for myself, no amount of that is going to miraculously turn my life from that of a 7-4, middle-class copywriter to that of an adventuring guild mage.

Like it or not, the latter is the kind of world that literalists want to believe in.

Experts are to be used, but it is foolish to rely exclusively on them, for they are just as flawed as the rest of us.

Just as flawed? No. You don’t have to be perfect in order to know better in a certain discipline. We might all be ultimately equal, but that’s when you take all aspects of every person’s life into account. On the other hand, if we were to measure ourselves in certain areas (like in this case, scientific knowledge), some of us are indeed more authoritative. The Magisterium has more authority even though in the end, each of its members are ‘just as flawed as the rest of us’. I don’t see you using that logic to defy Church authority.

Rejecting evolution a sin? Wow. You go from entertaining two views of creation all the way to declaring one of those views sinful. I guess it’s also sinful to believe Moses literally climbed the mountain and received the 10 commandments from God. I guess that’s just an allegory and to believe it literally is an insult to God who inspired the author of that story not to describe an actual event but to paint some moral lesson or greater truth.

Sinful or not, it actually makes more sense compared to a delusion where people think that stuff in The Mummy franchise can actually happen.

It’s just as I predicted earlier in this thread. I’ll tell you what is sinful. Trying to shame people who believe the Old Testament means what it says. Labeling them as somehow foolish, naive, or ignorant is truly sinful. Trying to influence younger less experienced minds to hold that type of snobbish view is even worse and quite frankly scandalous.

Replace Old Testament with the subject of evolution and you more or less get Bible fundamentalists. What? You don’t seriously believe they’re any less guilty of the crime you’re accusing people of?

As for the Catholic position, it’s clear. You can believe what you will regarding evolution and creation. Since the church’s position is one that does not strike down or reject either view, it seems sinful for any follower to do so, especially in a manner of total derision and pedantry.

No, the Catholic position is that anything is acceptable so as long as it doesn’t contradict core doctrine. In the Creed, we state belief in God as the Creator of All. That obviously rules out atheistic evolution. On the other hand, it’s becoming clearer that, with advancements in science, OT literalism is heading that same route. Our Theology shames those treat God like He’s no different from the petty wish-granters worshiped by pagans and infect the minds of the faithful with so-called ‘magical thinking’.

Literalists actually demean the true value of creation stories by emphasizing on irrelevant details. Our faith does not depend on literal accounts of Genesis. Period.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

It would seem to me evolution is the belief that would make God like David Copperfield. David Copperfield is an illusionist. He makes people believe he has supernatural powers but really is just deceiving them. If God created man through a relatively long process using the natural laws then that seems more deceptive to me. If evolution is how God created man then he was unnecessary to the process other than creating and sustaining the laws. To be sure that still requires supernatural power but does not seem nearly as impressive.

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).

The ancients get short changed. The Greeks over two thousand years ago had established geometry and calculated the distance to the sun. They also had a pretty good idea of the orbits of the planets. If you read Aristotle he had clearer thinking, greater knowledge and more wisdom than 95% of the college graduates I encounter today. I frequently encounter scientists who lack a basic understanding of logic despite, or maybe because of, their years of education. I’m not inclined to think of the ancients as suffering from their lack of scientific knowledge since modern man seems to lack sufficient reason to make proper sense of his observations.

 

[St_Francis]

As much as I value thinking for myself, no amount of that is going to miraculously turn my life from that of a 7-4, middle-class copywriter to that of an adventuring guild mage.

Like it or not, the latter is the kind of world that literalists want to believe in.
Sinful or not, it actually makes more sense compared to a delusion where people think that stuff in The Mummy franchise can actually happen…

…No, the Catholic position is that anything is acceptable so as long as it doesn’t contradict core doctrine. In the Creed, we state belief in God as the Creator of All. That obviously rules out atheistic evolution. On the other hand, it’s becoming clearer that, with advancements in science, OT literalism is heading that same route. Our Theology shames those treat God like He’s no different from the petty wish-granters worshiped by pagans and infect the minds of the faithful with so-called ‘magical thinking’.

Literalists actually demean the true value of creation stories by emphasizing on irrelevant details. Our faith does not depend on literal accounts of Genesis. Period.

Lost, I posted this reply to you earlier on in the thread, but so much has happened, I thought you might have missed it:

When we read the Bible, it’s a compact distillation of what occurred over at least 3,000 years, to just a relatively few people. Most people did not live like that or experience most of those things.

In our day, we live mostly in the world, sitcoms and all, *but that is not the entirety of reality! *It is only the material side of reality.

Saint Padre Pio, who died in 1968 and was recently canonized, had the gifts of discerning people’s sins in Confession and bilocation–he would appear to people far away from where he actually was. He was very close to God and many people experienced miracles large and small through his intercession.

That is just one recent example.

I think in a way that we are blinded by our world. It’s like the fact that there are stars which are much larger than our own Sun, but we cannot see them during the day because our seeing of them is obscured by the closeness of the Sun. In the same way, material reality is so easy to see because it is close and so vivid, it is a distraction from supernatural reality, which is soft and still and quiet.

I often have a lot of trouble praying the Rosary, or, I should say, getting around to praying the Rosary. Finally it came to me that praying is *hard work, *and that it is “practicing” paying attention to the supernatural. Paying attention to the supernatural does not come easy to us! We have to work at it. Many of us are just amateurs at praying, like high school kids who know a few songs on the guitar, but some of us are virtuosos like Andre Segovia, and these people are saints (whether known and canonized or anonymous).

I am sorry that I reminded you of fundamentalists arguing against the Faith with it–I was just rrying to show that Christ had said that apparent miracles would be performed which were not from God. The Enemy, devils can perform preternatural acts. I mentioned that in reference to what you were saying about the Egyptian sorcerers.*

 

[St_Francis]

…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…

I do not think that either believing or not believing in evolution would be a sin: each person would judge the issue for themselves. It would in fact be a sin to go against one’s consciene in this matter, but I think that since none of us actually knows how God created the world, that one cannot say that this way is correct or that way is wrong, except of course, for the idea that God did *not *create anything.

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.

This is true, and one of the ways that Catholic teaching differs from that of certain other, Protestant teachings.

 

[tomarin]

Which transitional are you referring to? There is no proof. They are all assumptions.

Take a lego set - look at all the things you can make with the same blocks.

No, they’re in the fossil record. Found in Pakistan.

Do you think dolphins had ancestors who looked different from them? If you do, do you believe they were terrestrial or marine animals?

Your point about legos is a little cryptic; care to elaborate?

 

[buffalo]

No, they’re in the fossil record. Found in Pakistan.

Do you think dolphins had ancestors who looked different from them? If you do, do you believe they were terrestrial or marine animals?

Your point about legos is a little cryptic; care to elaborate?

What fossil specimen are you referring to?

The Lego is an illustration of common design and all the different things that can be built with a few base building blocks.

 

[edwest2]

To Lost Wanderer,

“Literalists actually demean the true value of creation stories by emphasizing on irrelevant details. Our faith does not depend on literal accounts of Genesis. Period.”

Our faith hinges on it which is why this subject is brought up constantly while being phrased in different ways. Certain things are being denied to overthrow key components of our faith.

Did God perform zero miracles in the Old Testament?

Is God incapable of doing things science cannot do?

Where did Original Sin come from? A sin that is passed on to all?

Why was Jesus Christ born? Why did John the Baptist say, Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.?

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Source: Catholic Answers archive

I am getting sick and tired of this subject. Why? Because it is being brought up constantly for a reason - and not a good reason. Every time someone/anyone posts here that “we” must believe in some theory, it helps to convince me that the real reason and even the theory are wrong in a fundamental way.

The correct answer is a sober look at all the data, not You Must Believe.

Peace,
Ed

 

[yankeeredneck]

I’m thinking that the real issue might be that many people feel disgust and aversion at the idea of being related to animals – apes, slime, etc. But this is really an awesome and exciting thing in my view…that we have stardust cruizing our veins, that the elements of which we are composed were formed in the belly of stars.

That the entire, huge, and expanding universe came from something extremely tiny we can’t even see it, and that presumably came from nothing (tho science can tell us). That humans & complex organisms came from tiny molecules that started replicating (DNA, RNA). That God came to Elijah in a tiny still voice (not in the big fire and whirlwind). That God came to us as a tiny babe in a manger (a place where animals feed).

Wow!! God is so much greater and grander than our puny minds can comprehend. We could have never imagined or come up with these things, we could only learn about them from God’s great works. RE God we can only sit under the “cloud of unknowing,” getting tiny glimpses of His grandeur and majesty from time to time. As St. John of the Cross said (I badly paraphrase), if we have some conception of God, we’re wrong.

That the frailty, humility of heart, and self-surrender of God come as man gained me eternal salvation. Wow! Who knew?! Who could have ever imagined?

God never fails to wow me and wow me.

Dear Friend and Fellow Catholic,
I can see how you might be enchanted by the story of the Big Bang and a grand rollout of the Universe over billions of years. But since there is no evidence for it, as nobody was there to see it, it is only mere speculation and fantasy, robed in scientific language, to give it respectability. One could just as easily say that the universe flew out of a cosmic monkey’s behind, but it is still a fantasy and has no basis in reality or provable science. The primary problem with evolution is that the assumption going in is: “There is no God”. Therefore, some kind of fantastical explanation had to be invented to allow us to exist without a Creator. They chose time as the magical agent allowing impossible changes to happen, in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy). That is, order arising from disorder, when the opposite is true (a LAW). When you propose theistic evolution, you are really saying that God used the means proposed by those who think it happened without Him.

 

[St_Francis]

No, they’re in the fossil record. Found in Pakistan.

Could you provide a link to this?

 

[tomarin]

The Lego is an illustration of common design and all the different things that can be built with a few base building blocks.

Okay but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? I’m supposed to look at lego blocks and discover what exactly, that the dolphin has no terrestrial ancestors?

 

[tomarin]

Could you provide a link to this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans