Monthly Archives: December 2010

Science and Creation Or Evolution and Missing Links?

Over the years, I have had many discussions about evolution. I have listened to the ‘enlightened’ of NPR, National Geographic, and others. They base their conviction on assumption of evidence not proven as fact.

They chide the ‘ill-informed’ who accept creation. In fact; their ‘faith’ in evolution is just as blind as they claim the ‘ill-informed’ are.

Recently in a discussion with a man who claimed to be a former NASA scientist, he said he was willing to explain how the eye evolved to its current form from a cell that became sensitive to light. I said, “Explain.” He said it takes too long and I would not understand it anyway.

Well that was quite a slam, but I retorted, “I think you’re quite capable of explaining it in a short period of time. I’m certain I could grasp your explanation. You are an intelligent man and can see beyond the explanation. It is the ‘questions’ that you will not be able to answer that you fear. For example how do you then explain how the eye of a cat, an eagle, a fish, a lizard, a cow, and a human are so remarkably different.” He treated me like a child and we bid our good-bye.

The eye is just one part of the evolutionary conundrum – there is the circulatory system, respiration, the nervous system, and on and on. Can anyone explain why some creature suddenly appeared on a seashore and decided to breath air?

The ‘enlightened’ that produce for the likes NPR and National Geographic are, in many respects, like the man I encountered. NPR at times will present and advocate creation, but never a scientists who advocates creation. Is that because there are none? Although the number is small, it is growing. They are seldom, if ever, interviewed, rather a person from the non-scientific community is often used to explain creation. The listening or viewing audience is left with an almost humorous view of the person and his position. It is as if there is a covert attempt to herd the populace toward secularism.

It was Twain who said, “If you find yourself with the majority, its time to reassess your position.”

The scientific community has hitched their wagon to the fossil record as evidence, but it is open to a wide variety of interpretations. Those interpretations have always been predicated on the assumption of ‘missing links.’ Every year or two the scientific community announces it has found the ‘missing link.’ By now, you might think they have enough ‘missing links’ to form a necklace. The media does their part to give credence to the new find (missing link), but little or no follow-up. The fact is that they are later proved scientifically fallacious. That is never given the hoopla that the original finding was trumpeted.

It seems that ‘missing links’ are, in fact, ‘nonexistent links.’

In recent years many scientist have marveled at the intricacies of genetics and the dynamics of DNA. Some have concluded that evolution is beyond the realm of scientific explanation and something more intriguing must be admitted – intelligent design.

Scientists are people. They are not monsters. They are motivated by prejudice, greed, peer pressure, and fame like anyone else. We somehow expect them to be above that. They are not the voice of reason that they are portrayed in literature, drama, and screenplays. There is little difference between them and the person who thumps the Bible and says God created the earth in six, twenty-four hour days.

Those ones may say if you don’t accept the six twenty-four hour day teaching you are somehow an evolutionary son of Satan. Quoting from Geneses 2:4 it says, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” Note that the term ‘day’ is used to reference and include all the days earth and heaven were created. ‘Generations’ in that verse is linked with ‘days.’ Thus in that verse “day” actually included six ‘days’ not one twenty-four hour ‘day’ and that ‘day’ was ‘generations’ in length. As an example, ‘day’ is idiomatically used in our ‘day’ to refer not to just one ‘day,’ but perhaps many years; such as we might say, “In Washington’s day….” Which day was it? We actually might mean even decades, but yet insist on using ‘day.’  Thus the Bible allows for each ‘day’ to be undetermined ‘generations’ in length.

The Bible and science harmonize completely. It is the zealots on the extremes of both sides that poison the well and not allow for informed, logical, and scientific conclusions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays