Columns Opinion Richard Mouw: Civil Evangelicalism

The gifts of science are worth celebrating

The evolution of man

(RNS) Here is a poem that I learned at an evangelical “Bible camp” when I was a teenager:

Once I was a tadpole, long and thin.
Then I was a froggie with my tail tucked in.
Then I was a baboon in a tropical tree.
And now I am a professor with a Ph.D.

This came to us with a warning about the evolutionary views held by most of our high school teachers.

Most of my fellow campers seem to have taken the warning seriously, but I had my doubts. For one thing, I liked the teachers who taught science at my high school, and I had a hard time believing they meant to be undermining my faith.

But one of the older people who worked at that camp, a college student, told me that evolution as a mechanism for change was not a real threat to Christianity.

He showed me a book by a Christian scholar who said that the real conflict was the added “isms.” Evolutionism, as a worldview, teaches that everything happens by chance. Creationism, on the other hand, is the big-picture view that all that has happened in the history of the universe is in fact the unfolding of a divine plan.

And now I am a professor with a Ph.D. — and that “ism” way of putting the case still seems right to me. To be sure, there are people who want to use scientific investigation as a means of undermining faith. But there are also many others who still teach silly poems to teenagers to create distrust of high school teachers. I see the need to be on guard against both camps.

But, thank God, those camps are not mutually exclusive. Large numbers of us, including many fine scientists, accept the gifts of scientific investigation with deep gratitude.

Shortly after that Bible camp experience, I learned to sing, at a Billy Graham meeting in Madison Square Garden, what was then a new hymn (actually an old one imported from Sweden): “O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder, consider all the worlds Thy hand has made … then sings my soul … How great Thou art!”

This weekend there will be a large gathering in Washington to celebrate the achievements of the natural sciences. I am glad that they are meeting. We have been hearing some of that Bible camp type anti-science talk from some well-known public leaders in recent days. I can’t be at the Washington event,  but I will be there in spirit. And to express my solidarity with those folks, I will sing the hymn about “awesome wonder!”

(Richard Mouw writes the Civil Evangelicalism column for RNS)

About the author

Richard Mouw

Richard Mouw is Professor of Faith and Public Life at Fuller Theological Seminary, where he also served as president for twenty years. He is the author of twenty books, including Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World. He earned his PhD in Philosophy at the University of Chicago.


Click here to post a comment

  • For Richard Mouw, the theory of Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

    (It’s an important line of argument, because biblical Christianity remains a key roadblock to full acceptance of Darwinism. So the evolutionists often preach this line, just as the un-named “college student” camper preached it to Mouw long time ago.)

    But make no mistake: Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
    Even the “evolution of man” monkey-business at the beginning of Mouw’s article, is totally at odds with biblical Christianity’s historical claims about the origin & nature of humanity. No joke.

    So check it out. Why is Evolution incompatible with Christianity? Here’s my answer:

  • Wrong way round actually – it’s your particular subset of Christianity that is incompatible with the SCIENTIFIC THEORY of Evolution.

    Most Christians in the developed world understand that the Bible was not intended to be a textbook; scientific, historic or cosmological (they know this because they think God is always right and are rational enough to see that the Bible is wrong).

    If one’s belief is so fragile that it is threatened by reality it really ought to be dumped shouldn’t it?

  • Science has been very successful at sorting out many of your God’s mistakes, something he is either unable or unwilling to do for himself.

  • Don’t forget that many people regard the discovery of Pi as a scientific advancement – well almost, I mean Pi = 3 isn’t too far out is it?

  • Benedict Option for creationists solves everybody’s problem. Think of a large Amish-like community surrounding Ken Ham’s Ark in Kentucky…

    Would pull in the tourists too, even little old secular me has done the Lancaster county PA Amish farms visit — picked up some wooden crafts, had some Pennsylvania Dutch Noodles, watched the buggies go by…

    ….So get Ken to add some roller coasters to his Ark adventure — and a water park…40 days and 40 nights of rain after all…And yes, the true Christians may have to ease up and allow some of that Kentucky Bourbon to flow freely…that’s the only way an evangelical could bring an atheist to Jesus…load them up with whiskey !!

  • Speaks badly of your form of Christianity that it is somehow unable to deal with established scientific principles and evidence. It leads one to believe that dishonesty and ignorance is a key component of belief. Creationists are a terrible endorsement of Christianity as a religion deserving respect.

  • Umm, nope. I have only called attention to evolutionary incompatibilities that ALL Christians can agree on.

    For example, all of the Big Five incompatibilities are independent of the age of the earth, so that both young-earth and old-earth Christians can easily join forces, and agree that evolution is rationally incompatible with Christianity.

    I never said the Bible was a science textbook. But the Bible clearly makes a ton of historical claims, including clear and specific historical claims about the origin and nature of humanity.

    The only way you can disagree with that fact, is if you’ve never read the Bible at all.

  • Anyone can agree that Christianity is incompatible with evolution – I do and I’m neither a young-earth nor an old-earth Christian. Such agreement has no relevance to whether the scientific theory of evolution is correct.

    The Bible tells a lot of stories, some of them include historical claims including some about the origin of humanity. If you choose to take the content of those stories literally you are placing story-telling above data. OK if you want to, but it means the conclusions you draw are incorrect.

    I don’t disagree that the Bible can be read as making claims, my disagreement is with the veracity of those claims when taken literally.

  • Floydlee, I faced this issue in school and can testify that reading the bible (with objectivity) and comparing it to science is the best way to see how utterly ridiculous the bible is on scientific issues – as expected from a book written during a time of scientific ignorance.

  • They are incompatible because one is based on a large body of evidence and predictions that can be tested while the other is the writings of men ignorant of science and can only be taken on faith.

  • Creationism is not the the biblical creation belief …its phony science that no Christian is required to believe.

    Don’t hitch your religion and faith to a pack of lies.

  • Then it’s time to go back and take a closer, more exacting look Jim.

    Times have changed (or “evolved”), and modern science is no longer the friend of evolution. It’s not even the friend of theistic evolution (which is Mouw’s gig).

    I wish I could give all the credit to Christians and Christianity for the prickly doubts and controversies that created a cloud of public doubt about Darwinism, (especially as it relates to the origin and nature of humans.) But alas, it’s **modern science** that’s causing the troubles. Science truly marches on, Jim.

    But that’s not what Mouw is talking about, and that’s not what my own reply is about. Even if Christianity is 100 percent falsified by science, forever and ever, it’s still rationally true that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

  • I am a scientist …. there is no controversy over Evolution.

    This is the problem when you attach your faith to a pack of lies about science … you end up having to support more and more lies as not to do so threatens your faith.

    Creationism is phony science is nothing to do with the biblical Creation belief.

  • Exactly ….Christians should be leading the fight against Creationism as its an attack on their faith and beliefs.

  • See my response to Jim, Spuddie. If you should re-examine the theory of evolution (which I hope you will), and you happen find a butcher knife firmly lodged in its back, well that knife actually belongs to Modern Science, not to Christianity.

    As for me, my hope is simply that:

    (1) Christians will throw away all that unbiblical “theistic evolution” scam stuff,

    (2) grab firm hold of the butcher knife that Modern Science has graciously stuck in Evolution’s back, and

    (3) start twisting the knife, with gusto and glee.

  • Can you tell us one?

    I have yet to see any …. remember not his works …we have rational explanations for all that … we are after evidence of god the entity …the one you are having a personal relationship with.

  • Oh, I do believe you when you say you’re a scientist. No reason to doubt it.

    But I also know that it’s fake to say “there is no controversy over Evolution.” (Not impugning your integrity; it’s just that your line is Grade-A fake.)
    Your talking point was graveyard dead way before you or I were born.

    This is the age of Internet & Social Media, where ordinary folks can Google half a library’s worth of information in one hour, and locate for themselves all the doubts and controversies, all the weakspots and blankspots.

    C’mon now. That’s what this desperate fake “March on Science” is all about. Trying to act like Joe & Jane Public don’t already know about the evolutionary emperor’s wardrobe malfunctions.

  • Aside from your sarcasm, I will dignify you with a response. My dad was healed of lung cancer – no treatments, no drugs, just prayer.

  • Yea, people with little science background can read a ton of creationist lies on the internet …sorry that makes zero difference to science …. you should be humble enough to accept you don’t know enough to claim you know better than actual scientists.

    That is where creationists prey on people …in the public sphere … using their religion to make them support lies, in actual Science there is zero controversy.

    Creationism is not a little bit right and little bit wrong its all lies ..its every contention is backed up by nothing but lies and exaggerations and cherry picked data.

  • So you could be convinced rationally, with evidence and science, that Evolution is the theory of speciation?

  • Well every phenomena traditionally put down to magic and/or gods has been found to rational real world causality.

  • Actually, in a theistic universe, they DO make much more sense.

    Need proof? Then look at your own post there. It’s merely a single line of text, yet that single line of text (and its unswerving adherence to language, syntax and grammar conventions), is scientifically sufficient to permanently separate you FOREVER from any claimed evolutionary origination from primates or primate ancestors.

    No primate, no animal ancestor, can do what you just did there, and there’s totally NO MECHANISMS within evolutionary biology that can even begin to explain where you received that specific language ability from. The gap is totally unbridged and unbridgeable.

    So evolution cannot explain you or me or any of us. By the way, in the Bible, humans actually never have ANY animal ancestors at all. Go figure!!

  • Writing is just communication ….all animals do it.

    Birds and Chimps use tools too. The Babbler bird even has a syntax.

    I bet you don’t understand the so called ‘missing link” between man and chimps/bonobos either.

    We have one less chromosome than them. Human chromosome 2 is a fusing together of 2 chimp/bonobo ones … the base pairs are the same, there is a visible join and there is even vestigial teleomeres. Amazing hey.

    Its absolute proof that evolved from a common ancestor that no one can deny.

  • Um, no. Your views of evolution have nothing to do with science and everything to do with a childish view of scripture and a dishonest view of personal faith. Creationism is lying to yourself and others in service of your religion. You can do better than that.

  • Hey, don’t like Evolution? Sorry, its Science.

    Reject Evolution , you reject science … if so you should return everything that science has given you …; granted you will be sitting in cave freezing but think how good you will feel not being a hypocrite.

  • Maybe you should be humble enough to accept that actual scientists (just like yourself, yes) are the ones raising all these doubts, controversies, weakspots and blankspots about your beloved theory of evolution.

    It ain’t the Christian preachers and theologians giving you all this trouble. It surely ain’t because of THEM that nearly half of America is doubting your Darwinism even today. Many Christians have taken a sort of “Benedict Option” on this issue, retreating into the dank, dark, dodgy cave of Theistic Evolution.

    So it’s modern science, and modern scientists, who are threatening your chosen religion of evolution. Time to blame science for evolution’s woes!!

  • Believe in Creation …but never accept Creationism which is just phony science … the bible does not claim to be science …Creationism does. Never confuse the 2.

    You do know science is not based on beliefs right?

  • If a billion people say a stupid thing …its still a stupid thing.

    Being a scientist I am informing you that there is no controversy in Science about Evolution …. you have been misinformed.

  • Let’s be honest: the babbler bird can’t save you. YOU are doing an utterly sophisticated, structured system of syntax, grammar, and language, totally unknown to any animal or primates,with NO evolutionary biology mechanisms to explain how you got it. The babbler bird isn’t even close, within ANY category.

    According to Science Daily, “When flying, the birds produced a flight call “AB,” but when feeding chicks in the nest they emitted “BAB” prompt calls.” That’s all they’re doing. They have an “A” and a “B” sound, and they combine the sounds to (1) signal flight, or (2) signal they’re feeding chicks in the nest. That’s all.

    It’s an interesting biological function, (ain’t it strange how the biological world displays intelligent functionality everywhere you look !!), but it’s nowhere near what YOU are displaying — and there’s still NO evolutionary mechanisms whatsoever, to link any babbler bird communication to YOU.

  • Well, there’s the Book of Scripture, and then there’s the Book of Nature. The latter has birthed one or two scientific advancements, it seems.

    Surely, a “Priestl(e)y” would understand that.

  • Epigenetics is causing a huge problem for evolution and how is it possible that soft tissue is found in dinosaurs bones 140 millions old? Neo-darwinism is hanging by a thread with evolutionary scientist!

  • Well, I sincerely like all those adjectives and nouns you described yourself with. No way do you have anything but respect from me. But you speak in tongues, is that right?

    That means that you are often praying to God, or praising God, in an unknown (at least to you) language that is directly given supernaturally to you by the Spirit of God (Acts ch. 2).

    So I’m not going to lie to you. You just killed the Theory of Evolution. Yes you did.

    First, in the natural, your post above displays certain complicated language, syntax, and grammar abilities that permanently separate you from ALL animals/primates, and destroys the claim that you originated via evolutionary descent from ape-like common ancestors.
    But now YOU have raised the ante, by introducing a supernatural, God-given language convention ability that totally utterly destroys ANY chance of evolutionary origination.

  • As the scientist involved explained to you.

    “Iron is necessary for survival, but it’s also highly reactive and destructive in living tissues, which is why our bodies have proteins that transport iron molecules to where they are needed but protect us from unwanted reactions at the same time,” Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University who discovered the apparent T-rex tissue, said in a statement.

    “When we die, that protective mechanism breaks down and the iron is turned loose on our tissues — and that destructive process can act in much the same way formaldehyde does to preserve the tissues and proteins.”

    Also there is no new-Darwinism or Darwinism at all …nor is there Macro or Micro Evolution either.

    Again, there is no controversy science and to believe otherwise is to believe a lie.

  • That IS a syntax and its passed on by learning.

    Its not an Evolutionary argument … just countering your own species worship.

  • You are the one that is saying a magic entity like a god exists the onus is on you to provide some evidence …not me to prove a negative.

    No evidence = no god.

  • Re Nofun’s “Prayer has never worked before” and your “how would you know?”:
    Excellent, Sandi! I hate it when one person — whether antitheist or antiatheist — trespasses into somebody else’s sacred pastures and proceeds to tell the other person what’s “fact” about that other person’s inviolate beliefs.

  • It is my considered opinion that most PH. D.’s of what ever ilk should be classified in the evolutionary family tree that includes used car salesmen.

  • There are substantial numbers of scientists who would dispute everything you have said.

  • They would be lying to you.

    Let me guess you think the people at the Discovery Institute are doing science?

  • Believe prayer cures cancer all you like it doesn’t make it so.

    I don’t like seeing people waste the only life they get pretending to be someone other than themselves …I motivated by nothing but love brother.

  • Science is, of course, totally incompatible with religion of any kind.


    Science is skeptical; believers always seem to me to be “optimistic” and disinclined to be skeptical.

    Science says “challenge the accepted knowledge”; and especially, “challenge authority.”

    Science is public, religino is personal and private; science says “if you don’t believe me, do the experiment yourself. Here’s how I did it…”

  • The one piece of “evidence” you chose to cite: “My dad was healed of lung cancer – no treatments, no drugs, just prayer.”

    Meanwhile, many millions of seriously religious people have died of lung cancer, and we can be sure that they and their families prayed for healing without receiving the result they sought. So, there must have been something extra special about your dad to motivate god to heal him while allowing millions of others to endure an agonizing death despite all their prayers.

    Delusion/fantasy/myth is staring you in the face, and you refuse to see it.

  • I would disagree and many, many Christians do not see evolution as incompatible with Christianity. Even within the evangelical Protestant community. Evolution is, more correctly, incompatible with a Christianity that is based on a literalist understanding of Scripture. While I think it is a secondary issue as to belief, your position/statement is likely important as representing one reason (and the binary thinking behind it) as to the growth of the ‘religious nones’.

  • Not aiming at floydlee – that would be a waste of time.- just showing any vulnerable readers that there are other views. Not responding can be seen/presented as agreement can’t it? The Gish gallop comes to mind.

  • “Believe prayer cures cancer all you like it doesn’t make it so.”

    Ummmmm… I’m an atheist. And the issue isn’t beliefs; it’s behavior.

    When it comes to how people treat each other and their metaphysical beliefs, I object to “Us” presuming to trump “Their” beliefs with Our “facts”. Of course, I don’t support Them treating Us and Our beliefs that way, either.

    In this case, the fact is, neither We nor They can know for a fact whether prayer ever cures or has a significant role in curing anyone’s cancer.

    On the other hand, Richard Rush, in the 2nd paragraph of his reply to Sandi, brings up a good point — and then follows up with a remark loaded with hostility. As I’ve said before, the most important words, delivered with hostility, deliver only hostility-smothered words.

  • Well a pox on both your houses. Just the same old lack of thinking in the article and comments. Neither the scientist-evolutionists nor the religious-creationists knows how to eliminate cancer. So what do they know? Not much. And why is there suffering? If you can’t answer that, well, you just don’t know the first thing about your own existence — like what is it? Neither can explain the intensity or constancy of suffering — everyone suffers — a lot. Religion is better at explaining synchronicity. Both approaches are easily understood by 18 year-olds. Neither can grasp that time might not be linear. I heard a little child screaming at the oncologists’ office. I heard a little child screaming at the orthopedic surgeons’ office. If there is a good god, it is a miserable failure.

  • You’re correct that “many Christians do not see evolution as incompatible with Christianity.” So I ask: “Can you tell me HOW evolution is compatible with Christianity, in light of the Scriptures, and of the Big Five incompatibilities?”

    I’ve honestly found that Christians who believe evolution is compatible with Christianity, can’t answer this question. They cannot provide rational / Scriptural justification for their particular belief. No joke. They just can’t do it.

    And it’s not just “a literalist understanding of Scripture” that is opposed by evolution. Oh no no, evolution opposes Christianity itself. Atheist Frank Zindler summarized the current evolution situation perfectly:

    “Now that we know Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed.”

  • All aboard the train, Ms. Suzy! Please have your dialogue ticket ready!

    (PS…Your intelligent spell-checking abilities constitute yet ANOTHER scientific disproof of the evolution sales-pitch of “ape-like common ancestor” human origins. No joke!!)

  • I think we do know that talking to yourself i.e. Prayer, does nothing for anyone else.

    When people want to force their religious superstition based rules on others one should expect hostility.

  • Be sure when you get cancer to NOT get it treated by science in a hospital.

    As The Princes Bride says: Life is Suffering …anyone who tells you different is selling something.

  • Yea, lets have no intellect …what could go wrong.

    You need smart people more than they need you.

  • “When people want to force their religious superstition based rules on others one should expect hostility.” Of course. Did I say otherwise?

    However, all Sandi said in the post which originally caught my eye was, “My dad was healed of lung cancer – no treatments, no drugs, just prayer.” That’s hardly forcing her beliefs upon you, let alone “rules” (emphasis, since she cited none).

    On the contrary, you argue Sandi’s personal belief as if you’re the slighted party. Her statement does nothing to harm you, or force you, or control you in any way.

    We both know Sandi frequently and relentlessly disrespects and tries to “fact”-trump our existential beliefs, and we both have plenty to protest when she does.
    But she’s not doing it now.

    Speaking as an atheist whose devout parents depended upon their faith to carry them through a terrible final year — and speaking as one who doesn’t have to believe in prayer to appreciate the merciful comfort and hope it gave Mom and Dad — all I’m saying is, trying to trump her non-infringing belief with yours is counterproductive (and, unfortunately, hypocritical) when you’re accusing her of trying to trump your non-infringing beliefs with hers.

  • A Ph.D. is no guarantee of resounding intellect; often, especially in the “soft” disciplines, it is more a matter of memorizing and collating certain precepts that someone else has already articulated in a more original fashion.

  • I will not waste your time or mine. Any scientist I would cite, you would dismiss as not qualified, regardless of credentials, rejecting them solely for their beliefs, not for their arguments, though you would disdain those as well. If you were willing to do your own legwork, a Google query would doubtless provide the answer to your question.

  • None of the pastors whose teachings I have had the benefit of have practiced or would countenance the crimes of which you speak. Nor does my God countenance such things. In due time He will make proper judgment in each case. You paint with far too broad a brush.

  • A Ph. d. requires years of original research … its not your high school English book review.

    Again you have a chip on your shoulder about the educated.

  • This god fella didn’t do much to stop any of these attacks …why is that?

    Its like he isn’t real.

  • Its not harmless to claim prayer cures cancer.

    Its leads people to not support science based medicine … instead it becomes some tawdry contest of faith which ends up with people suffering and dying unnecessarily.

    Worse it re-enforces magical thinking over the rational which is a threat to everyone.

    I don’t have existential beliefs either.

  • Its not a matter of qualifications … its what their contentions are base on.

    There are plenty of credentialed people in the Discovery Institute …none of them are doing any science.

  • I apologize for assuming that you share my existential belief that there is no deity.

    The belief that prayer cures disease has been around many millennia longer than the science that cures disease, and magical thinking may even predate our species. Yet look at the progress medical science has made in curing disease while 84% of people worldwide continue to cherish their faiths. Look at the advances all the sciences have accomplished in a world filled with religions. Do you see evidence that humanity is in danger of forsaking the physical gifts of science for the metaphysical gifts of religion unless we force our faithful equals to forsake their equally rightful beliefs for ours?

    Of course, neither of us is going to change the other’s beliefs about others’ beliefs.
    But though we disagree, Nofun, we have succeeded in making our positions clear.
    I wish you well.

  • Ha! Epigenetic just shows that the means of change that fuels the evolutionary process is deeper and more reactive than previously understood. Epigenetic reinforces the evolutionary theory.

    And you are referring to the cartilage that has been found? Why would time be a factor in finding something properly preserved? Is someone amazed they find other chemical structures that have lasted millions of years?

  • No. Wrong. Science says precise things about a precise domain of reality.

    Anyone using it in any other way is not doing science. For example people using Evolution to make Cosmological arguments.

    A theory has to explain all the evidence and be falsifiable. Creationism can’t do either.

  • How exactly is Evolution scientism?

    Evolution is the scientific theory of speciation. That’s it.

    It people like yourself that claim Evolution is atheist or scientism, thus its you who are basically taken it out of context and lying about it.

    You either don’t understand the evidence or deny it, either way nothing you believe will make it go away.

  • You claimed Evolution is scientism without being able to back it up.

    It isn’t.

    What word ‘letter’ am I missing?

  • Science moves slowly at time as our universe is complex and much of science is trial and error. We know more about certain kinds of cancer, while others still elude us. It’s a matter of time and effort. The religious will never cure cancer. Science recognizes that there will many things we will never explain.

    I plead ignorance to your reference to synchronicity or why religion is better able to explain it

  • The methodology of the hard and soft sciences use the same systems: hypothesis, data collection, analyzing results with statistics and drawing conclusions. Usually models are created, whether a single equation or complex. New data are fed into the model and it makes predictions that can be tested. To get your PhD your dissertation must be original.

    Your comments are an insult to PhDs and reflect ignorance.

    P.S.We in the physical sciences tend to look down in social scientists, the “soft” scientists. ?

  • There’s a lot that can’t currently be explained. It’s always been that way. Then 20 years passes and we’ve figured out another piece. The fact that science hasn’t found the answers doesn’t mean it can’t.

  • No controversy in the framework but plenty in the details. That’s not unusual and further studies settle these controversies, resulting in a stronger framework and theory.

  • And when you read the articles about this you find “For a long time, scientists believed that protein molecules, which make up soft tissues, could only last about 4 million years or so”

    So even their low limit was over 600 times the one you’d like. This is just showing such molecules are more stable than previously estimated, nothing more.

  • You are kin to the frauds who have disparaged evolution since Darwin.
    DNA is fact.
    Evolution is the most proven and accepted law of nature.

  • Troll you are indeed.
    Zindler’s comment is as valid today as it was some 30 yrs ago when first written.

  • No.
    The 18 yr old’s are leaving superstition in droves.
    You speak of cancer – which is not a singularity but a maze of inflictions.
    Ask your bible thumpers why they don’t just ” pray ” an abscess away…..

  • To the degree that each dissertation is “original,” hardly mitigates the absurdity of some topics chosen for study. While I lack the credentials of a high level academician, I’ve examined enough papers in journals to feel well grounded in my assessment.

  • Not particularly, I simply understand that some people assimilate knowledge more effectively than others whatever their credentials.

  • I rarely hear synchronicity mentioned, Jim. It is something like — I think of a bluebird. Then I look out my window and see a bluebird. Later that day in the mail I receive a card with a bluebird design on it — mailed two days earlier. The logical conclusion is that I am the center of the universe. . . Prosperity gospel has much in common with this sort of thinking. If I think the right thoughts or say the right prayers, then a new Cadillac will appear in my driveway and I can have everything I wish for! A strict scientist will say that random events are processed by the brain so as to appear non-random, thus the apparent prevalence of bluebirds. Some religious will say that apparently non-random events are caused by a god or a devil. I will guess that much of what we would like to think of as totally random, is ultimately not random in some sense yet unknown.

  • Don’t get too depressed. There might be a few bright spots in life, maybe even some fun.

  • If you are quoting ICR, you have already demonstrated a lack of honesty in dealing with the subject. Nothing they publish can be taken at face value or represents actual research and work by scientists in the field of biology.

  • None of them being biologists or experts in any of the related fields in question.Making their opinions on the subject worthless.

    Creationists who aren’t knuckledragging cretins are usually from mathematics and engineering fields. People who are predisposed to look for organized intentional patterns rather than objectively view the messiness which is life sciences.

  • You would be dead stinking wrong.

    Neither Discovery Institute nor any Creationist with scientific pretensions does research or anything that passes muster under any any form of methodological standards in the fields they criticize. Creationists don’t do work of their own. They don’t do anything anyone can consider scientific work. As evidence keeps growing and growing concerning evolution, they keep trying to find excuse after excuse for ignoring it.

    There is no such thing as an honest creationist. The belief requires its adherents to lie as a matter of course.

  • You are entitled to your opinion. You, of course, are entitled o be wrong as well. I know of no one on this website that tosses around the word “liar’ as frequently as you. You might consult Guinness.

  • I wish that I could express the intent, vision, clarity, and plan of scripture in a way that would bring light to you in its regard. I don’t begin to comprehend the mind of God, but because of the evidence I’ve both seen and experienced, I trust Him to be just, and true. I can easily discover the specific fault of human character because I recognize it in myself. Using that as a starting point, moving onward from there to the omniscience of God is a relatively easy task.

  • Creationism requires lying about the basis of the proponents belief. To deny ones faith and pretend there is rational and scientific evidence to support it. Things go straight downhill from there to justify that false front. From misrepresenting current scientific discoveries, from pretending expertise and controversy which does not exist all the way to claims of atheist conspiracies suppressing their work. It is dishonest as rational discussion, it is dishonest as religious belief.

  • Science denial depends largely on the opinions of people who lack expertise and skills required to challenge the existing theories. People whose opinion is largely worthless on the subject due to the lack of qualifying background. The scientific process is credible precisely because it requires it’s experts to go through laborious processes for qualification and vetting to make it so. Amateurs spouting off on the subject do not cut it.

    There is a reason expert witnesses must be established as experts before they can testify in court. An expert witness is generally the conduit between scientific or medical fields and the lay public having to evaluate it. So if one lacks qualifications, they lack the ability to give expert opinions to the public on matters they claim to have expert knowledge on.

  • ‘No’? You have to wonder what’s in it for a believer. Just being smugly self-righteous and having a place to socialize and having unthinking group-think