The Question that Darwin Could't Answer

It is a little known fact that some of Charles Darwin's strongest initial objectors to his theory of natural evolution were palaeontologists. They claimed that if macro evolution were a fact, there would have to be millions of fossils of the intermediate varieties of species. Tons of species constantly evolving, should be tons of their leftover fossils, correct?

No. According to Zoologist Mark Ridley: "The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can rarely be seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example"(1).

But Darwin's time was years ago...so certainly today we would have better record of this happening, right? Palaeontologist David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History said: "We are now 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (2, Italics mine).

For me, this serves as striking proof that we need be more diligent to test the claims of natural evolution, especially when we draw them out, such as with the fossil record of supposed intermediate species.

______________________________________________

(1) The Problems of Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1985, p.11.

(2) Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p.25.

Quote for the Day

A thought for the natural evolutionist:

by: Voddie Baucham Jr.

"You are an accident. You are a mistake. You are a glorified ape. You are the result of random evolutionary processes. That's it. No rhyme. No reason. No purpose. You are ultimately nothing. This is the pathetic reality when evolution runs its ideological course. If the idea is carried to its logical conclusion, man has no more value than a field mouse; and if the field mouse is an endangered species that happens to share the man's property--guess who has to move?" (1)

________________________________________________

(1) Voddie Baucham Jr. The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World. (Gen. Eds. John Piper and Justin Taylor), p. 55, italics mine.

The Evolution of the Woodpecker

An observation about the long-tonged woodpecker. It is known that this woodpecker has four distinguishing features that allow it to survive. They are: 1)Sharp talons for holding onto a tree, 2) A long, pointed, strong beak for piercing wood and reaching insects inside the tree, 3) An extremely long tongue for reaching insects, and 4) A membrane around their brain that keeps it from splattering against their skull when they are repeatedly pecking at a tree.

So my question to those who believe in macro evolution is this: How did the woodpecker evolve? All of these traits are needed for its survival, and take any one of these away, and you take the bird away. I think this is an excellent example of intelligent design. Now, there are many websites dedicated to disproving the thought that a Creator formed the woodpecker for a purpose. Some claim that us creationists have got it wrong in the way we describe the exact anatomy of the woodpecker's tongue, and therefore there must be no creator since somebody did not do their proper research before writing an article (kind of a large jump in their conclusion if you ask me). Others state that not all woodpeckers, such as the Sapsucker, have extremely long tongues. But the sapsucker feeds off the sap that oozes out of the hole it just bore in a tree. Does it need an extremely long tongue? Heck no...because the sap comes to it once it bores a hole in the tree. Yet, because of this micro evolutionary trait in this species, many natural evolutionists say that there can be no Creator because the sapsucker does not have a long tongue as do many other woodpeckers. This also seems to implicitly state that a Creator would only create the exact same kind of every species and is not clever enough to create variations. (Ex. This train of thought would state that a Creator would always create an orange tiger with black and white stripes and nothing else, no Siberian tigers or anything like that, just orange ones with black and white stripes).

Yet, regardless of what type of woodpecker we consider, we must remember that these birds are still woodpeckers, designed with different physical characteristics that allow their survival. If it evolved from something like a hummingbird, which also has a long beak, how would it do so since the hummingbird is missing the other three essential traits that most woodpeckers need to survive?

Evolution....Fact or Fiction?

This past semester I have studied the topic of evolution more than I ever had in the past. I have: 1) Studied it in theology, 2) Seen Ben Stein's movie Expelled, 3) heard Dr. John C Lennox of The University of Oxford present an excellent series of lectures on atheism, and 4) been reading his book, God's Undertaker. Has Science Buried God? It is an excellent piece, and i would recommend it to ANYBODY, Christian or non, who would like a scientific look into the reality of a Creator.

Of all the things I have learned this semester concerning evolution, one thing stands out. Dr. Lennox describes a fictional setting where his aunt baked a cake and had it analyzed by the world's top scientists. He stated: "The nutrition scientists will tell us about the number of calories in the cake and its nutritional effect; the biochemists will inform us about the structure of the proteins, fats etc. in the cake; the chemists, about the elements involved and their bonding; the physicists will be able to analyze the cake in terms of fundamental particles; and the mathematicians will no doubt offer us a set of elegant equations to describe the behaviour of those particles (bolded mine)." (1)

It seems as if they have all the basics of the cake covered. Yet one thing remains. Nobody knows WHY his aunt made the cake!!! All of these scientists in their distinguished fields each covered the how questions, but none could answer the question of “why?” Lennox states: “the only way we shall ever get an answer (to why the cake was made) is if (his aunt) reveals it to us.” (2)

And it is the same way with the creation of the earth. Our sciences can answer many of the “how” questions, but none can touch the “why” question. That answer we will leave up to God in His Word. For Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now, many criticize the Bible for its lack of detail in these opening chapters. But the Bible was never meant to be a scientific account, for if it was, then it would have been of no use until about a century ago when scientific study was adequate enough to answer for some of the “how” answers. The story of creation was meant to answer the question of "who" and "why," and if you must insist on an answer to the question of "how," it says so as well. God created by His Word.

We are just beginning...more to come. And please....if you read this, make a comment of some sort. If you agree...say so. If you disagree...say so! More comments and interests will without a doubt equal more posts.

___________________________________________

(1) John C. Lennox. God's Undertaker. Has Science Buried God? p.40

(2) Ibid.

More Goodies....

Okay....so Washer got me fired up. Here's a few more shorter tid-bits that should be seen. Watch the Osteen one first!



No comments need be made about what Osteen has to say. I will let Piper speak for me.

Don't go through life not having heard this...

To the three of you that read this...sorry for the delay in a new post. I've been held up by some minor things such as exams, traveling to the Congo, accepting my Nobel Peace Prize, etc. Anyway, i thought i would post one of the greatest sermons that i have ever heard. In it, Paul Washer speaks boldly to the youth of America, but the sermon is definitely applicable to any believer, regardless of age. So do something for me. Take an hour (seriously...you can watch American Idol later...) and listen to something that is going to change your walk with the Lord. For my non-believing audience, it just might spark your interest in true Christianity...