Click here to listen to the show. . On this show I guest hosted for Bob Siegel on KCBQ AM 1170. I had two guests on the show. One was an ex-evolutionist who became a Christian creationist and the other was an ex-Catholic who had become an agnostic.
The ex-Catholic was Sandy Eulitt who is an astronomy professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Saddleback College.
The ex-evolutionist was Carey Waldie. He is a pastor and author of four books. He has a bachelor of science from Western Michigan University and is currently enrolled in the Masters of Religion and Science program at Biola University. Carey used to accept evolution as fact and even after he became a Christian, he believed in what’s called theistic evolution but after examining the assumptions of evolution more closely, he abandoned the theory in favor of an intelligent designer who created everything. It’s a very interesting show.
At the end of the show Sandy laughed at my remark that the Biblical worldview was the most plausible worldview. We didn’t get to discuss why she thought that was so funny but the current materialist evolutionary worldview has tremendous problems if you’re looking for a cohesive perspective that makes sense of our origins, free will, the complexity of life, consciousness, sense of morality, anthropology, geology, experience and many more issues. On the other hand, the Biblical worldview not only has compelling answers to the universal questions that humanity has asked but also tremendous amounts of factual evidences supporting the credibility of the history and explanations reported in the Bible. The classes I offer contain more than sixty hours of content explaining, discussing, and displaying the reasonableness of the Biblical perspective on reality. You can sign up for a class here..
Watch this video and then read my replies to his argument below. Some of these are straw men arguments just trying to make evolutionists look smart, others misstate the creationist position, and others have nothing at all to do with creationism. Lastly I post real creationist arguments.
#1 “Carbon dating isn’t accurate” – It’s not just carbon dating that has a problem. Every form of radioactive dating has three problems which many evolutionists simply ignore: one) there is no way to determine how much of the parent and daughter isotope a rock or fossil starts with; two) the decay rates of elements are not constant over time; three) parent and daughter isotopes can be added to a rock or fossil during the decay process. No scientist who actually understands radioactive dating would ever claim to be able to tell that the earth is 4.5 billion years old based on radioactive dating methods. That’s just silly.
#2 “You can’t prove evolution” – To me this seems like a deliberate misstatement of the creationist position. It should be, “you can’t prove macro-evolution.” Macro-evolution is change from one major kind to another, like a lizard evolving into a bird. Micro-evolution is variation within a species, such as different beak sizes in finch populations. Evolutionists make the mistaken assumption that just because micro-evolution (through natural selection) is scientific, so is macro-. But no one has been able to test, repeat, or observe any major kind changing into another…ever. If you want to postulate macro-evolution, that’s fine, but don’t say it’s been verified through scientific observation, testing, or repetition. It’s more like blind faith in evolution… or the “nothing” god.
#3 “If man evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys.” – This is not a creationist argument against evolution, but it is still a somewhat valid question. If Darwinian evolution teaches survival of the fittest and humans are more fit to survive than monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why does the “thinking atheist” just avoid the question instead of answering it? Sorry, but condescension does not excuse ignorance. It just makes you look like you’re trying to hide your lack of knowledge, and America and England have nothing to do with it.
#4 “The Human Eye is too complex to have evolved” – This is a valid creationist argument which was not answered by the “thinking atheist” and has not been answered by any evolutionist. Bringing the eye of an owl or octopus, or the Euglena antenna, into the argument is a rhetorical trick called a red herring, used to distract the attention from the original question. Give me some hard scientific data that demonstrates how an eye could have evolved. You won’t be able to because there is none. If you want to believe it evolved, that’s fine, just don’t call it scientific, call it “faith.”
#5 “Atheism is actually a religion” This is not an argument creationists use to disprove evolution, but I’ll respond to it anyway. Creationists are only pointing out that it is by faith that atheists believe that nothing created the universe, it is by faith that atheists believe that life popped into existence from nothing, and it is by faith that evolutionists believe that random processes with no mind of their own generated information that formed a human mind and became self aware and conscious. Maybe, atheists would like it better if we just said, “atheism isn’t a religion but it sure takes a lot of faith.”
#6 “Scientist X believes in God” – The “thinking atheist” first slams the creationist for a logical fallacy in which a person appeals to an expert, but the funny thing is, he then goes ahead and does it himself by listing respectable scientific establishments and making the statement that 93% of blah blah blah. That’s like saying it’s wrong to lie, and in the next sentence lying. History has shown the majority can be wrong, and so can experts. It’s best just to stick with the “scientific” facts. By the way, Dean Kenyon, the leading chemical evolutionist in the world, now says chemical evolution is impossible and he believes in God… but he could be wrong. ☺
#7 “You’re saying that everything happened by chance.” – Antony Flew, the famous atheist, recently became a deist because of this one. It’s been “scientifically” proven that statistically, there is zero probability of evolution actually working. Read this article on my blog by Robert Gerow about monkeys randomly punching on typewriters to write Shakespeare. Shakespearean Monkeys? Not in this universe!
#8 “America is a Christian Nation” – Why is this even in here? But briefly, George Washington requested to be sworn in on the Bible, the first session of Congress was opened with a Bible study, Thomas Jefferson ordered church services held in the White House and federal funding for missionaries to evangelize the Indians, and every single charter for American colonization puts the propagation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a main goal. For more on this one just go to Wallbuilders.org
#9 “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics” – This is a great argument against evolution. Part of the 2nd law says that all everything breaks down over time. The “thinking atheist” says the earth is an open system which is receiving additional energy from the sun, and therefore the 2nd law doesn’t apply. But adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically make evolution work. Look at what the sun’s energy does to the paint job on your car, or your upholstery or anything else. You’ve got to have something to organize that energy, like chlorophyll (more complex than a city), which didn’t organize itself and doesn’t even have a brain to think about organizing itself. So the atheist position is “just add sun, time, chance, and natural selection and you’ll get the spontaneous generation of amino acids which will organize themselves into DNA and proteins, which will organize themselves into cells, which will organize themselves into dinosaurs.” Brilliant. Just don’t call it science, call it faith…in nothing.
#10 “Hitler was an atheist.” – Whether Hitler was raised a Catholic or not, the real lesson here is that evolutionary thinking can really mess up your mind. If evolution is true, it raises the natural question, “which race is more evolved than all the others?” It wouldn’t be good for the more evolved human races to breed with the less evolved races. This would prevent the human race from evolving further. Evolution is all about the survival of the fittest, right? Hitler isn’t irrelevant, as the “thinking atheist” would have us believe. He’s just a very extreme example of someone who took evolutionary thought to its logical conclusion.
I recently received a question from one of my previous students who graduated in 2009.”…I had some questions on the evolution thing we did during apologetics. What was the flaw of Lucy? Like what did they find that was incorrect? And have you heard of the newfound hominids, one is called ardipithecus ramidus also ‘ardi’ and another one is called ardipithecus kaddaba? Let me know if you find anything about these two.”
Regarding Lucy or Australopithecus: Lucy is a 3 1/2 foot tall skeleton found by Dr. Donald Johanson in 1974. According to Johanson it was
the oldest most complete skelton of any human ancestor known to anthropoligists. It is supposed to give us a good idea of what our ancestors looked like 3 million years ago. Too bad it looks just like a chimpanzee skeleton.
The main reason Lucy is supposed to be a missing link in the chain demonstrating our evolution from monkey to man is because supposedly her hip bone and knee bone structure indicate she walked upright like a man.
There are two BIG problems with this assumption:
There are monkeys in the world today which walk upright and aren’t considered a missing link. The pygmy chimp for example in the Amazon Jungle.
The knee bone of Lucy was not found with the rest of her skeleton. It was found over a MILE away and 200 FEET DEEPER than the rest of the bones!!! What! I can just imagine this, “Well, we can’t find a knee for her around here, but Bob found one way over there, let’s just put the two together and it will even look like she walked upright.”
The sad fact is that the history of missing link frauds that are put forth by biased evolutionary advocates just gets bigger and bigger. If you had a friend who lied to you over and over again, eventually you just wouldn’t give much credibility to anything they said. The missing links put forth look real scientific and respectable with their big names like ardipithecus ramidus but dig a little deeper and you realize there isn’t any real support for what they are preaching. Here’s some more examples:
Ramapithecus, found in 1976, which was only the fragment of a jaw and several teeth was put forth as a missing link and turned out to be an orangutan.
Javaman or Homo Erectus was a Gibbon monkey skull and a human leg bone found 50 feet away by Eugène Dubois. This was a hoax which Eugène confessed to before he passed away. He had also found two human skulls right nearby which he had hidden in order to make his Homo Erectus fossil seem more plausible.
Piltdown Man was a human skull combined with the jaw of an orangutan collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, a village near Uckfield, East Sussex, in England. The teeth were filed down to make the fossil look more human. This was a fraud that fooled evolutionists for 40 years.
Neanderthal Man was a more than one fossil found that was stooped over and therefore classified as a missing link. But it was later discovered they were stooped over because of a bone disease like rickets. They are now classified as normal humans.
Nebraska Man was made up based off of one tooth found in 1921!! Turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
These frauds are so preposterous it boggles my mind. This is why whenever I hear about a new missing link I don’t get too excited. The truth will always rise to the surface and the theories and lies will fade away in time. It’s just sad that in our country these lies get so much air time in colleges and public schools and with such an air of scientific respectability.
As far as these newer “homonids” are concerned, here are two articles you can check out. These newer homonids are going to face the same fate as the ones I described previously.
If you follow the chronologies listed in the Bible beginning with the creation of Adam, the earth is about 6,000 years old.
Of course old earth, molecules-to-man, evolutionists disagree with the Bible on this point. The reason is because the only possible way molecules-to-man evolution sounds reasonable (a lizard became a bird or a monkey became a man) is if millions and billions of years are thrown into the equation. Nobody has ever seen one species of animal change in to another so it’s easy to reject the idea that change from one kind of animal into another happened quickly. But people fall for the idea of molecules-to-man evolution with no scientific basis just because time is added to the equation.
Well, this finding http://www.icr.org/article/4827/ really throws a wrench into the evolutionary time frames. Currently evolutionists believe by “blind faith” (I hate blind faith by the way) that the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. This long time frame helps to bolster their argument that the process of evolving takes “millions and millions of years” and if you take away their “millions and millions of years” you ruin their theory.
But now that soft tissue, red blood cells, have been found in a T-rex bone and a Hadrosaurus bone, we know the dinosaurs went extinct much more recently, like only a few thousand years. Why? Because if dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago all you would have in a dinosaur bone would be dust. Soft tissue doesn’t survive for even 50,000 years much less 65 million years. Ouch! That’s got to hurt.