I have attempted to correspond with her about her recent statements on CAF live.
I posed several questions about the claims she made and have not received a reply.
This article seems like somewhat of a reply. Note she is admitting God and His design. (no problem there) The issue that she believes in biological Darwinism. She stated that there was evidence. A caller asked for and I followed up with the same challenge. I asked for the top three. (again, no reply)
Her being a chemist I directed her to this from a top chemist.
A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?”
Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.
Now, I
understand microevolution, I really do. We do this
all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line –
concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is
very hard to fathom.
-and-
Just how difficult is the Origin of Life problem?
In this video James Tours describes his work with nanocars and the difficulty of solving the Origin of Life problem.
Time is enemy as products of reactions degrade
Dream team could not develop a cell
Nobody understands
When will science community confess they have no clue
Abiogenesis nightmare
“Some may contend that I did not use Nature’s building blocks, such as carbohydrates, amino acids, nucleic acids and lipids. I concede, I took the easy route and used simple synthetic molecules, not Nature’s far more complex compounds where chirality and diastereoselectivity can be enormously problematic in synthesis. Thus here we will consider Nature’s building blocks, showing that many of the common parameters hold, yet they become far more difficult for prebiotic systems than for the synthetic chemist today.”
Her article - " If you are confident that God created the climbing roses as well as the molding debris, the carbon dioxide as well as the tree trunk, the person as well as all the diversity of flora and fauna, the elements as well as the angels, then it never, ever should concern a Christian if scientists propose how biological diversity might have evolved."
My answer to this: Is the science has to be correct.
Richard Lewontin a top evo said this “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science
in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,
in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life,
in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we 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, t
hat 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.”
That is the problem with evolutionary science in a nutshell.
Perhaps she is converting to IDvolutionism.
