My Turn: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution on Time

As I noted in War has been declared Time ran a cover story titled "God vs. Science". Keeping to my word, this is my two cents. Much to my delight it actually contained a short debate between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the foremost speakers in the evolutionist arena. The person representing the intelligent design was Francis Collins. I am not too familiar with any of his writings, but his street credit was being the head of the Human Genome Project, which completed mapping the human genome (DNA) in 2000. As a whole, I found the article an awesome opportunity to represent intelligent design at its finest but was left lacking and at some points greatly disappointed.

I found it interesting that Richard Dawkins primary claim to fame was his most recent book, The God Delusion. In addition to this piece, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris, contributors in Wired's cover story were also mentioned. The scary part about their writings, they apparently are very popular, being noted as God Delusion has been on NY Time's Best Selling list currently at no. 8. Aside from Darwin's Black Box, I cannot recall when an intelligent design piece had received so much attention.

I took the opportunity to compare and contrast the articles between Time and Wired (especially since they were released the same month). I was able to gather some of the strategy the atheists are using. For instance, in the Wired article the New Atheists clearly express that they believe the faith in any kind of religion to be evil (the idea was initially put forth by Dawkins); however, no such condemnation is even hinted to in his debate with Dr. Collins. The overall tone Dawkins approaches Dr. Collins with throughout the article is rather friendly and respectful, far from what he proclaims should be the logical response to people who believe in God. Two-faced? Perhaps, I think he is simply smart enough not to be honest about his true beliefs because he knows he would gain more enemies than support to make such a claim. I believe Dawkins is using the same tactics as the earliest "scientists" that initially pulled people away from creationism.

For the sake of modern history, let's start in 1795 with James Hutton's Theory of the Earth. He suggested the way things are now has been the way things have always been. Then in 1830 Sir Charles Lyell wrote Principles of Geology in which he invents the geologic column. The geologic column, although never to be found anywhere on Earth suggested the age of the Earth to be more than 6000 years old as believed by most based on scripture. In 1859 Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life (yes this is the real title in its entirety), he observes the variation within the Galapagos finches and then concludes all life to be related to one another. Then in the 1860's Earnst Haekel created charts of similar embryology (now known as homology) to suggest that all creatures during development look the same and thus there is no difference in their makeup with ours. Despite being found guilty for fraud and confessing the charts were false in 1875, his theory continues to be promulgated in biology books as fact.

Each person contributed a little more to the now present theory of evolution. It all had to start with doubting what was believed to be true and denying scripture. Although they are hailed as scientists, they did not prove anything. Hutton's ideas encouraged people to doubt the biblical timeline. Lyell's ideas encouraged people to doubt the age of the earth. Darwin's ideas encouraged people to deny creation. Once the foundations of who we are were unknown, man anxiously made himself god. The baby steps in logic brought people from belief to unbelief to denial. This is how Satan operates with any sin. It starts out being rather harmless and unbenunced to us or those around us and it builds. It continues to build until we are right where he wants us.

Back to the article, after the resume and recent success from the evolutionists to summarize who is speaking for "science", to introduce the hard lining intelligent designers TIME says this, "Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science". I certainly feel like my beliefs were given credit as legitimate science... Perhaps it was not meant that way, but the article speaks for itself. At this point in the article the reference to science is in terms of strides in medical treatment, such as brain scans and MRI's. Not a problem, I would be hard pressed to find a bible-believing Christian to proclaim medical treatment as sinful.

Upon introducing the contender for Intelligent Design, he is noted as a "foremost of those arguing common ground" in the midst of the Science vs. God debate. If Time was looking for a good debate that might actually show the sides, they should have picked someone else. Richard Dawkins is in no terms a moderate in his atheism; he is the complete front runner of the growing religion. Francis Collins by description and his explanation in belief is a middle of the road intelligent design proponent. That is, he does not deny they age of the universe currently set around 14 billion years old & he does not deny evolutionary theory. Although far more common in the intelligent design camp, it is a weaker position from the start. To have a real debate of interest would be between a creationist and Richard Dawkins; actually it would only be fair. Take the hardliner from each team and then debate, not the Goliath from the atheists and Jesse's middle son from the intelligent designers. The debate's outcome was decided before it could begin, only how badly intelligent design would be beaten was up for grabs.

TIME: Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?
TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

The first question, worded differently to each is essentially "can science prove God's existence if God does exist?" Dawkins claims that it can and that is the primary objective of science. Collins claims God is bigger than the natural world and thus science cannot prove or disprove God's existence. Dawkins wins in this situation, he takes the "a crusader for answers" approach, people want answers and he makes a promise to search for an answer. Collins went wrong by playing into the definition Dawkins presupposed by his answer. Science is limited to natural causes. The definition of empirical science is that which is observable and repeatable. Anything more than what is observable and repeatable is not pure science. It is religion and faith more than Christianity. By not defining what is meant by "science", Collins comes across as not having an answer and plays right into the "religion" side and Dawkins is firmly planted as "science's" spokesman. To go oppose "science is against reason" is logical suicide. Evolutionary theory requires far more faith in unknown variables. It places its faith in undiscovered laws and molecules rather than faith needed to believe the Bible is the real Word of God.

TIME: Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, famously argued that religion and science can coexist, because they occupy separate, airtight boxes. You both seem to disagree.

The next question being setup by a claim of a late anthropologist and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asked if religion and science could successfully coexist because science and religion are in two different areas of thought. Dawkins was right, that position was suggested "simply to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp." Dawkins continued claiming miracles completely defy science. Collins responded that there is no differentiation or separation between science and religion. While Collins might appear to take the higher road he does essentially skirt the issue. Once again if he defined science to the definition of what it is, his response would have been sufficient. My first thought to Dawkins claim that miracles contradict or defy science is "yea... that's what makes them miracles because there is no explanation science can offer". Miracles cannot exist if there is nothing more than natural causes, I dive deeper into this in When you believe in Miracles.

TIME: Professor Dawkins, you think Darwin's theory of evolution does more than simply contradict the Genesis story.

This is the ultimate death of intelligent design getting any points in the debate. Dawkins masterfully plays the "millions of years" card that can adequately explain the variation in the world today. Collins responds, "I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it." Instead of suggesting irreducible complexity (working systems that could not have formed or been functional without all parts present), which is the entire point in Darwin's Black Box; that is essentially a response to Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins did attempt to answer Dr. Behe; Dr Behe replied that such examples were not answers to the problems posed. There has been no further answer from science or atheists to address irreducibly complex systems. Worse, Collins by attempting to appease people who believe in evolution that Christian faith is compatible with evolutionary beliefs. If one wants to take scripture as the Word of God, I address that in Can Christians believe in Evolution? Collins undermines the Bible's authority and waters down the stance of creationists.

TIME: When would this have occurred?

It continues to get worse for the ID community. Collins suggests God activating evolution as a valid theory, this is like watching the goat being set out for the T-Rex in Jurassic Park... and the T-Rex in the debate devours the goat just the same. Dawkins calls out Collins that it doesn't make sense for a God to design a system that would take 14 billion years to get to a stage that we could start sinning and needing redemption. This is precisely why there cannot be a middle ground between evolution and the Genesis creation account. One of the two events happened. Sadly Collins attempts to defend his position that one cannot reason like God, while I do agree with that statement, in the context it was used it offers his theory no redemption.

TIME: Both your books suggest that if the universal constants, the six or more characteristics of our universe, had varied at all, it would have made life impossible. Dr. Collins, can you provide an example?

Although Collins does give a good example, the gravitational constant being so precise that "if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur." Dawkins finally starts to suggest the naturalistic explanations through constants that narrow vastly improbable odds and multiple universes that Collins was able to pounce on because there is no scientific evidence for such ideas. In addition, Collins suggests Occam's razor, Occam's razor suggests the most simple and straightforward answer makes most sense.

At this point in the debate the two engage in some direct back and forth dialogue. Dawkins claims that the idea of God is just as improbable as chance. Collins responds that God does not need explanations, he is the explanation. Dawkins fires back attacking the answers God provides to be the duty of scientists to discover. Collins responds with the lacking of evidence with current ideas to counter fine tuning and then requests that people allow God as a possibility. They continue going back and forth until Dawkins belittles God by suggesting that God could be anything from God of Martians, inhabitants of Alpha Centuri or Yahweh.

TIME: The Book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Here Collins gets a chance to offer creationists a little credit in the scientific arena. Instead Collins shoots down the Genesis account because "is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other". In this sentence Collins conceded that he believes the earth is billions of years and that he believes evolution to be true. To make it worse he cites St. Augustine's contentions that Genesis is difficult to understand if it is taken literally. The only problem with that suggestion is that science has advanced plenty far enough to explain what science in Augustine's day could not. Seeing the agreement and weakness in Collins scientific and religious stance Dawkins gets into friendly banter about the disagreement between old earth intelligent design advocates and young earth creationists. Dawkins goes as far as suggesting that creationists be dismissed altogether.

TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?
TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?

Collins appropriately applies that God is not bound by nature so he could defy natural laws when he chooses. Collins goes further to explain his belief in science and faith can intertwine, especially in the investigation of miracles. Dawkins, knowing the possibility of miracles is the very embodiment of everything he is against, proclaims that to refer anything to a miracle is a cop-out and undermines as well as invalidates any possibility of scientific credibility. To quote him "Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility." According to Dawkins anyone who prescribes the possibility of anything beyond nature, they have lost all scientific credibility. Despite any appearance of respectfulness he had or even apparent friendliness he had towards Collins, his most blunt statement confirms that he has no scientific respect and Collins has no credibility as a scientist. A fine example of the Atheist’s tactics, discredit possible competition before they are allowed to come to the table to talk.

TIME: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity's moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.

Sensing that TIME does not share similar conclusions about moral behavior, Collins refers to sociobiology or evolutionary psychology as current social studies seeking to explain good behavior amidst evolutionary origins. Collins successfully points out that since behavior applies to individuals, to be moral, selfless or altruistic, it is often not beneficial to behave in such a way thus, the concept of good must have come from something more which ought to be attributed to God. Dawkins attempts to explain the value people have for good behavior to be remnants of prehistoric life. Since the early civilizations lived in close proximity to extended families and it is natural to want to preserve genetics, "do-gooding" is based in the drive to help ourselves by helping those that share our genes around us. Dawkins uses this as an acceptable reason to explain human behavior by evolutionary benefit. What he didn't mention is that he also believes behavior such as rape, murder, theft, and other forms of immorality must have had some social benefit because the behavior continues to exist today. This is a prime example of being stuck between a rock and a hard place for Dawkins. On one hand, there is pain in world, aspects people will classify as evil. If evolution is the only cause available, because a person is nothing more than interacting chemicals reacting with one another, then for even the most disgusting behavior there must be an evolutionary benefit in order for it to still exist. Furthermore, according to Dawkins there is no such thing as good or evil, he admits there are good things that happen and evil things that happen but he does not attempt to define what is good or evil. Instead, he denies any existence of absolute good or evil.

TIME: Dr. Collins, I know you favor the opening of new stem-cell lines for experimentation. But doesn't the fact that faith has caused some people to rule this out risk creating a perception that religion is preventing science from saving lives?
TIME: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of faith or Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?

The final topic of the debate, stem cell research (STR) one of the hotter topic issues that is receiving most of the objections from the religious community. Collins explains that he understands why people are against STR and will value people's opinions. Dawkins compares a killing a human embryo to killing a cow. He also refers to why religious people object to STR, "the issue is, Are they human? If you are an absolutist moralist, you say, "These cells are human, and therefore they deserve some kind of special moral treatment." What both people failed to do was explain what kind of stem cell research. There is embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and cord blood stem cell research (CBCR). For ESCR an embryo must created (fertilize the human egg with human sperm), then killed to harvest stem cells. For CBSCR blood from the umbilical cord is saved and stem cells are harvested from there. I object to ESCR for the same reasons I object to abortion, that is exactly what it is. I have no objections to CBSCR. The funny thing is, the most recent studies, CBSCR has had far better success than ESCR. The "scientific" community wants to pursue science in a manner that requires the killing of embryos, sounds more like the abortionist community to me...

Wow, this turned out to be really long. I decided against summarizing the conclusions, each person said their peace. Congratulations if you actually read this. As always your $.02 is always appreciated

Can Christians Believe in Evolution?

As I was joyfully approaching the end of my current read when I got to thinking again. Something I noted in the midst of the 14 essays contained in the book was virtually all of the contributors never pronounced any stance on what they believed. They only stated they did not believe in evolution in its current state or under the present evidences of support. Myself being clearly defined as a young Earth creationist found that somewhat disconcerting. I find it necessary to explain some terms so we are speaking and reading the same language.

First, by reference to evolution, this pertains to macro-evolution and the guidance by survival of the fittest. I in no way attempt to argue against bacteria adapting and "evolving" as some phrase it, to antibiotics, or that the peppered moths did not change in quantity in relation to the air quality during the observations of the peppered moths in the UK. Second, what on earth is a young earth creationist? Within the camps of creationist, those that believe the Genesis account of creation, there are young Earth and old Earth. The young Earth creationists believe the Earth and the universe is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old, while old Earth creationists hold to the billions of years suggested by evolutionary theory. As I go along any other choice vocabulary I happen to describe I'll be sure to define.

As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, the majority of the contributors did not explain what they believed. The editor and contributor of the book, Willaim Dembski, mentioned he was a creationist but I am unsure if he is in the young earth or old earth camp. I know I have written several other blogs about the topic as a whole and you may start to notice as I have learned from the number of books I have read so far on the topic, it is a vast topic. Something I have definitely noticed there are not many books about young earth creationism by very many people with decent credentials showing that they have a functioning brain. I would say Answers in Genesis is one of the main forces for the young earth theory.

Why this is I think is very understandable. In the scientific community there are very few (by proportion) people that have actively stated that they have disagreements with evolutionary theory. In fact, it is even mentioned in Darwin's Black Box if you are a beginning scientist whom wishes to have a career to be silent about your reservations/disagreements. To publicly state that you may have disagreements about the evolutionary theory is in the same breath to kill one's scientific career. Every intellectual I have read so far started believing the theory and after time, tenure and critical thinking they changed their beliefs. In addition to having a red letter on their white collar to much of the community discredits their further science. So unless someone plans on working for a creation science organization to pursue a career in science it is any wonder that there are so few scientists who actively pursue young earth science. A further difficulty in having a greater number of young earth scientists is the limitation of opportunities. By the nature of young earth science, it is related to the Genesis account (they would be Christians) whereas the intelligent design theory while many of the proponents are Christians the actual theory only pertains to an intelligence, be it God, aliens, or some other form of intelligence.

I asked it in the title and it was not a rhetorical question, “Can Christians believe in evolution?” The simple short answer, I do not believe so. Then again you knew I would never answer something so simply. In order to fully answer that question it begs the prior question of what one believes the Bible is? If it is the literal Word of God (take into account that the books of prophecy and poetic books like Psalms, Song of Solomon, and Proverbs use metaphors) or if it is merely a book of stories and legends. Anyone who has looked can easily find the historical proof Jesus of Nazareth existed, be it the direct ancient manuscripts which composes the Bible, the writings of the ancient Jewish historian Tacitus, Jesus’ existence has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. What about the history of the Old Testament? Namely Genesis since that seems to be the key book in this topic.

I think we can biblically figure out if those that wrote the bible believed in the Genesis account of creation. Through a simple search on Biblegateway there are 24 results, allow me to dive into some of them:
In Matthew 13:34-36 Jesus refers to creation in such a way as a specific time. This is also confirmed in Matthew 25:33-35, Mark 10:5-7, and John 17:23-25 just to start. One of my favorite passages, Romans 1:19-21 Paul refers to Creation as the starting point people knew about God and chose to exchange God for something else. Paul mentions creation several other times in Romans, in those terms it was in reference to all the created things. In 2 Corinthians 5:16-18, we are described as new creations when we are in Christ, the logical implication is that before we were in Christ we were old creations. I think that is worth mentioning that we are described as created things, one would reasonably think that to be referred to as something that was created that the event of Creation was believed as such. Galatians 6 also mentions that we are new creations.
Creation is mentioned as an actual event multiple times in Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, and Revelations. Does it make sense that if the authors of scripture believed creation happened, it did? If that is true then I think it would make sense for us also to approach our origins in a similar way.

The other major point about creation being necessary to Christianity is one's belief of original sin. Did sin and death enter the world the moment the fruit from Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten? Be it those that say Christianity is compatible with evolution claiming that it was guided by God or those that take Psalm 90:4 out of context to claim creation was not 7 literal days, day being 24 hours not thousands of years. If sin did not usher death into this world first, alternative theories are saying that at the point in the world when God pronounced the world and all creation to be very good death was present. It also contradicts Romans 5:12-21, Romans 6:15-17. As those passages clearly state, sin is the prerequisite of death. That doesn't mention there for those that want to believe the Day-Age Theory (a day is like a thousand years) there are certain issues of science to answer, such as how did plants survive without the sun. After all plants were created on day 3 while the sun and moon (light to govern the day and light to govern the night) were created on day 4.

So what is the gist of all this? A person can call themselves a Christian and believe whatever they want. However, to be a Christian, is to believe the Bible as the Word of God. I do not think a Christian can believe evolutionary theory as it is in its current form, ie without acknowledgement of God. Those who claim the two beliefs can be compatible negate to mention in order for their faith and idea of science to be compatible, either the Christian doctrine or the evolutionary doctrine must compromise.

Worldview Matters

While reading my current book I came across a truly eye-opening essay that I think points out why it is so important for Christians to be familiar with the origin of life. For those of you willing to spend an hour or so to listen to the presentation just follow the link. I found this piece rather unique because it is not the average "this is the evidence of intelligent design" or "this is what evolutionary theory has assumed without proof", instead it is merely an extrapolation of where our society is going and why IF Darwinism is true as it is so often assumed to be.

I was struck like I saw the light upon reading this because at once so many pieces came together. I have seen a few pieces here and there starting with CS Lewis and on the other side of the spectrum Dr Dino referring to how either Darwinism leads to death and social chaos but not such a concise presentation.

Have no fear this blog is not simply limited to an advertisement of why I really think you should listen to this lecture. I have long believed the pinnacle issue in reaching people in our post-modernist society is to point to them that there is a Truth. That has been the curve ball that I think many Christians are not adequately trained how to deal with. In fact, while on a long bus ride this last weekend I happen to get in an awesome conversation that covered Truth, Free Will and what it means to be a Christ Follower. I believe it was in my sophomore or junior year that I was first made aware of post modernism and how it makes the Gospel void in many minds.

When discussing issues of faith with other Christians one of the basics that I think has the greatest repercussions in one's total theology is how they interpret free will, I think Romans 1 covers that topic quiet well. The quick summary is do people individually choose God or are the predestined as mentioned in scripture the only people that will accept Christ. The nutshell of how it affects us has to do with our evangelistic habits. If we believe that it is a person's individual free choice to accept God then we must reach them were they are and bring Christ to them. If we believe that a person will turn to God as one of the "chosen" then we might not be prompted to bring the Gospel.

So are we free creatures who must own up to our own actions and responsibilities of our life or not? This is where the issue of Darwinism or Humanism directly connects to every facet of our life IF it happens to be true. For those that have been taught since the start public education that we are nothing but chemicals that have come together without purpose and by random chance the value of our lives shouldn't be much more that the vitamin content that we are composed of. In addition, if we are merely chemicals and genetics reacting from prior causes and prior chemical reaction than is it really right to be held accountable for any action or behavior? After all we would simply be the vessel from which the chemicals cause. Issues of society like law, crime, economy, competition, love, and any other aspect will be under the control of the natural forces will suddenly be nonpunishable, moreover the structure of society will be based upon such principles of absolute meaninglessness.

As society is moving along (in which direction I think it is clear) the states of our "Enlightenment" as many intellectuals like to marvel about bases that Christians must prove grows. It is common when I start a discussion about right and wrong that we lead directly into is there truth and what is truth? It does not take much longer to reach the issue of our origin, why would there be truth if there is no truth giver? To prove the existence of personal responsibility we must move people beyond humanism's cause and effect. The philosophical smoke screen blinds so many without them seeing it, and it blinds them that much further from the Christian worldview which I think is a perquisite to one understanding who God is that we might want to live for him.

This is so important for us to be aware and willing to take action against because it is so closely related to the worldview people have. The behavior of society, I believe, is a direct reflection of their worldview. Those who believe the greatest joy in life is to experience pleasure as much as they possibly can, will act accordingly. Those who believe their purpose is to make the world a better place will also act accordingly. Those that believe our purpose in life is to increase God's kingdom will spend their life doing so. In order to get there though because without a life of purpose why would anyone live out a life for anything?

Epilogue: It is always fun to read blogs which I proclaimed a theology I no longer hold. As the years have past, my knowledge grown, I embrace much of what Reformed Theology states.

A Theory In Crisis, Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

Many of you know how I like to argue things; I have a more distinct fervor for arguing things that I think have a connection with our faith but do not require our faith for the explanation to make complete sense. Something that occurred to me either this morning or sometime yesterday while I was almost a lone ranger on the Hard Core Christians Living Hardcore MySpace forums arguing for Creation against several advocates of evolution. I found it entertaining and somewhat challenging, not so much because they came up with new arguments that I have never seen before, but because I had to explain and come up with examples of evolution's incompleteness. It is not often that an entire debate will end in one sitting in a forum atmosphere but this one did.

I don’t want to keep this blog unreasonably long because I noticed from my previous blog I got a little too excited to dump all the arguments on the table and it only resulted in a really long blog that intellectually vomited on the reader with so many points and arguments. I found as I got to the last several points to fully elaborate would be simply too long. I suppose that is what happens when I try to summarize points made from several books and journals into such a small place like a single blog. So let's see how this one goes.

Oh before I get on with it I also want to through a shout out to Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". This is a very interesting book so far, I am about 1/6 of the way through it, it is through Dr. Behe's style of this read that this blog has really come to be. He does not claim to believe in Intelligent Design or Young Earth theory (the earth is 6k-10k years old) like most authors of material that question evolutionary theory as it stands today. On one hand I feel as though he is arguing for something he doesn't fully believe in, but then it hit me, he isn't really arguing for Creationism as his quotes are being used throughout the world in creation vs. evolution debates. All Dr. Behe is doing in this book, so far, is pointing out that evolution as it stands has issues that need to be addressed.

As simply as I see it in my mind right now it is that evolutionary theory has many problems within itself. So far Dr. Behe has not gotten on a soap box after exposing difficulties with the theory; he has just shown how the current theory is inadequate for what it is. These problems range from: the origin of life, benefits through mutation, irreducible complexity, explanation of the Cambrian explosion, and overall age of the earth in respect to what mutations must exhibit, and the list goes on. Each of these problems I can write a mouthful about it with my limited knowledge on the subject. I know full well I can't explain the complete difficulties and failings of the theory but I can give a good summarization of each of those issues. To get a full explanation the kind that should be the satisfying standard of the scientific world would require some serious post-graduate level explanations.

I am not saying that only people with doctorates can understand or explain the problems, just that the bases of those problems need to be explained at such a level that it takes an expert in that field of science. For example, as a micro-biologist Dr Behe listed on the molecular level a very "basic" version of how sight functions in our eyes. I know I am more current with remembering my college biology and chemistry and even that "basic" explanation had me struggling to get the gist of it. This example of the eye is just one of the many problems found within biology that will need micro-biologists to fully explain the function and possibly its origins.

I am greatly tempted to break out some of the evidence in support of creationism but that would be to miss the point that I want to really elaborate upon. Often within a debate over a controversial issue it comes down to two sides, the majority verses the minority. This is present in every debate setting, but as I pointed out in my abortion blog, there is actually a core issue within the debate. It is not given the attention it deserves instead the arguments dance all around the core topic. Abortion for example is "Is the unborn human?" simple as that. What is the core issue within the creation vs. evolution or ID (Intelligent Design) vs. Evolution argument?

In the midst of the "us vs. them", feel of this debate I think many people over look the true stance of the ID community. It is not so much that we are pointing to evolutionists and saying "you're wrong", we are pointing to evolutionists and saying, “you got problems and contradictions within your theory." In addition we like to add "our explanation through ID fits like this..." That is the heart of the issues as I see it. I think special attention needs to be made to keep this idea in mind because it is so easy to get bogged down in so many arguments which turn into an intellectual shouting match, sometimes not always involving intellect or shouting.

I Finally Got a Digital Camera

I finally got a digital camera. Hopefully I will have posted some of the incredibly fascinating sights of Germany that I have seen... yawn. I managed to get one on sale from the PX for what I think was a great deal. It is a nice 4.1MP Sony, like anyone, I started to play with it right after opening it. I quickly realized as I played with it on the ride back to base, a digital cam isn't that special.

I recall a good deal of interesting facts about the human body, animals and other aspects that have irreducible complexity to the point that God's creation should be obvious to anyone. Among those tidbits one that stuck out in my head was that the human eye records approximately 2 Terabytes per second worth of information if that same information were to be put in digital form. Best way I can describe, a lot of freaking information. I took note that the pictures I take at their quality were roughly 2mb each, seems about right I think the resolution is something like 2400x1900. So comparing the 2MB picture to 2TB of information the picture quality is somewhere along the lines of 1/1,000,000 in quality to what our eyes record per second.

Off hand and as I initially thought when I heard that number thrown out there that is rather farfetched, aiming high perhaps. It was not until I got the hi-tech 4.1mp digital camera that the statistics on my eyes doesn't seem nearly as farfetched. With my glasses that can really use a new prescription I can see several miles out when the sky is clear, all the while what I see is for the most part rather clear. I would suggest taking pictures with your digital camera to see what I am talking about (Disclaimer: please don't be the driver if you are going to test this). I tried taking some pictures of some cool looking buildings probably about 1/2 mile away, after all it was really big from my point of view and we weren't driving terribly fast. The pictures looked awful, if I managed to get the right area it was blurry, tiny, and the building was much smaller than what I saw. I even tried to take some pictures of traffic signs as we passed them and they were very blurry because I was still moving, and this was at like 10mph that the pictures still looked awful.

There was a part of me that thought, "Awww jipped this camera is crap", then the other part of me is like "Woah, all of a sudden 2 terabytes doesn't seem so far out there". Considering what I can see, how clearly it is, and all the aspects of my sight, I just felt a little bit smaller and how awesomely God made our eyes. I didn't realize how cool it was until I saw what modern "technology" has produced in the 21st century, compared to my eyes, yawn. To think that is just our sight, who in their right mind says that our eyes are poorly evolved, cause if they are their still better than this camera, I mean things are undersized and lose focus at 20ft. I need to spend a couple hundred dollars to see clearly with a foot long lense to see the same or clearer image that I can see with my built in lense that is home many mm thick? Simply awesome to realize how great God's creation is.

What a Wonderful World

I finally got a digital camera. Hopefully I will have posted some of the incredibly fascinating sights of Germany that I have seen... yawn (oops). I managed to get one on sale from the PX for what I think was a great deal. It is a nice 4.1MP Sony, like anyone, I started to play with it right after opening it. I quickly realized as I played with it on the ride back to base, a digital cam isn't that special…

I recall a good deal of interesting facts about the human body, animals and other aspects that are irreducibly complex to the point that God's creation should be obvious to anyone. Among those tidbits one that stuck out in my head was that the human eye records approximately 2 TB/s worth of information if that same information were to be put in digital form. I took note that the pictures I take at their quality were roughly 2mb each, seems about right I think the resolution is something like 2400 x 1900. A mathematical comparison the 2MB picture to 2TB of information the picture quality is somewhere along the lines of 1/1,000,000 in quality to what our eyes record each second.

It was not until I got the high tech 4.1MP digital camera that the statistics of my eyes started to click. With my outdated glasses I can see several miles out when the sky is clear, even with my corrupted unassisted eyes I can still see better sights than this new camera can capture. I tried taking some pictures of some cool looking buildings probably about 1/2 mile away, after all it was really big from my point of view and we weren't driving terribly fast. The pictures looked awful, if I managed to get the right area it was blurry, tiny, and the building was much smaller than what I saw. I understand the aspect of a fixed lens versus our lens, does that not make the function of our eyes that much more amazing? I even tried to take some pictures of traffic signs along the road. They were very blurry because I was still moving, and this was at like 10mph that the pictures still looked awful. There was a part of me that thought, "Awww jipped this camera is crap", then the other part of me is like "Woah, all of a sudden God’s creation really was something spectacular". This is especially amazing considering we have had how many millennia of mutations and fallenness that might have weakened our created state. What I can see, how clearly it is, and all the aspects of my sight, I just felt a little bit smaller and how awesomely God made our eyes. I didn't realize how cool it was until I saw what modern "technology" has produced in the 21st century, compared to my eyes. To think that is just our sight, who in their right mind says that our eyes are poorly evolved, cause if they are their still better than this camera, I mean things are undersized and lose focus at 20ft. It is simply awesome to realize how great God's creation is.