Red Pandas, Trees and Orchards
In the recent Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate on origins (which one tweeter aptly named the Ham on Nye debate) based on some comments I've heard,
it seems to me that a number of people missed one of the main points Ham was making. And since one the reasons for this blog is to defend the
Biblical account of origins let me revisit that point here.
Ham pointed out that the Bible makes specific claims about origins - the origins of the solar system, of people, of all creatures. In contrast the
theory that allows Richard Dawkins to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Darwinian evolution - also makes claims - quite different claims. So
the question is which explanation better fits the evidence? On the one hand, in a doctrine known as "common descent" Darwinian evolution claims that all
creatures are descendents of a single ancestor. That means that all creatures are related and are part of what's known as the evolutionary tree of life.
At any rate the point of this site is to present evidence. And a strong piece of evidence
is this: the mixed traits that make the job of the taxonomist - those who classify creatures - difficult - are better explained by a creator
creating a number of different ďkindsĒ; than trying to squeeze creatures into the evolutionary tree on a branch where they simply donít belong in order
to rescue a theory that doesnít fit the evidence. In Godís scheme of things, mankind is the pinnacle of creation (Psalm
8.5); in the evolutionary scheme, youíre just a fellow animal among the lions and tigers and bears, (oh my!). Which brings up another piece of
evidence Ė isnít there a certain aesthetic beauty to Godís scheme? Mankind created in Godís image compared to the evolutionary scheme where man is just
another animal somehow arising from the slime? And while weíre at it, where does the perception and appreciation of aesthetics come from? Thatís a topic
for another post.
Duane Caldwell posted 2-25-2014