Friday, August 3, 2012

Some thinkin' for the weekend, sorry

The Evolution of a Creationist appeared recently in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. I would think both sides of the argument would find it interesting, but it makes me wonder too if people have open enough minds to ever reconsider their opinion on this.

Either way, I point it out to you anyway. Here's a snippet:
The mathematical odds of forming, by chance, a single protein molecule from its component parts can be shown to be so unlikely that it could not have happened anywhere in the known universe in 30 billion years. Much less could it be combined with the hundreds of other components to form the simplest possible living cell. 
Similarity of form does not prove common ancestry. It can also mean common design. (Young Earth creationists believe that the original Genesis kinds were intrinsically capable of great diversification, something we have seen with the breeds of dogs -- who remain dogs, nonetheless.) And fundamentally, fossils require rapid burial. Closed clams, seen all over the world, were covered before they could open in death. 
As to the age of the Earth, this seems to be the most formidable barrier to accepting biblical creation and requires more technical knowledge. Let me cite a few examples that point out the weakness of the arguments for old age and the increasing scientific respectability of a young earth view.

No comments:

Post a Comment