Liar, Lunatic, or Lord

April 6, 2012

It’s Good Friday, and I figured it would be good to pull out a little C.S. Lewis.  The Liar, Lunatic, or Lord proof is one of C.S. Lewis’ most famous use of reason and the law of excluded middle.  The law of excluded middle is often called the either/or law.  I will borrow an example from Ravi Zacharias to explain the law of either/or.  Imagine my wife and I are taking a walk down the street together and another couple that knows us walks up to us and makes the statement “Congratulations, I hear you are pregnant.”  At the same time my wife says “yes” and I say “no.”  The other couple stares in confusion and shock, wondering what is going on.  My wife cannot be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time.   There is an explanation for the different answers.  Perhaps my wife hasn’t told me yet, perhaps we agreed not to tell anyone until after a certain time has passed, perhaps there might be new trouble in our marriage!!  But we know that she cannot be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time.  One of us is wrong.

Jesus is the center of Christianity, even many other religions claim some part of Jesus either calling him a prophet, a good moral person.  Jesus made some bold claims as he taught the people, the biggest Jesus made was the claim that He was God.   Several places in the scriptures Jesus claimed to be God some of the more popular scriptures are. John 8:58, John 10:30-33, John 1:1,14.  There are many other statements and examples that we can pull from scripture, but not at this time. Jesus forgave sins, allowed Himself to be worshiped, among many other clues from other people.

Using the Law of excluded middle we can see how Jesus claim to be God was really the only one that makes sense.  You can see from the chart below of how it flows. out with the either/or law.

If He was a liar consider the following results:

1. He deceived people on purpose
2. He was a terrible blasphemer (Claim of God)
3. He was a hypocrite (Told others to tell truth & He lied)
4. He evil because He claimed to forgive sins
5. His followers trusted Him for eternal destiny
6. He was a fool, for He died for His lies.
7. He is not a great moral teacher because of this list.

Of all the results above, I find the hardest to believe that Jesus was lying and He went to His own dead on a painful cross for nothing.  I don’t know anyone who will die for a lie THAT THEY KNOW is false.  It doesn’t make sense.  However, what if Jesus just thought He was God, He believed it, and perhaps was crazy or a lunatic.

If He was a lunatic consider the following:

1. There is no evidence of Jesus being abnormal or imbalanced.  A lunatic is typically only into themselves and doesn’t care about others around themselves.
2. Unlike a madman, Jesus always demonstrated the greatest composure under pressure.  For example when religious leaders questioned Him, when crowds tried to stone Him, even when He was on trail for His life He was calm and in control.
3. Jesus was too wise, loving, and creative to be crazy.  If he was crazy we should all hope to be crazy also.
4. Mad or Insane the miracles and resurrection stand on their own.
5. The disciples would have obviously recognized a crazy man after spending 3 years with Him side-by-side in ministry.

Those two possibilities don’t seem to make a lot of sense, that leaves us with the third possibility which is Lord.  Jesus is who He says He was and it is either our choice to choose to reject Him or accept Him.

Originally in C.S. Lewis’ explanation there was a 4th category of Legend.  But since his writings in the mid-19th century a great amount of external evidence to Jesus outside the Bible has been discovered through other Christian and even non-Christian historians that make Jesus a historically a real person.

One other objection I have heard over the last year was that perhaps Jesus was a real person, but never claimed to be God, and after His death the early followers and church made up Jesus to be something greater, like God.  The problem with that argument is that many of the early Christians, even most of Jesus disciples died a martyrs death faking a story, creating a lie, and trying to keep it going.  The idea that the early church in the 3rd and 4th centuries changed the writings of the Early apostles doesn’t fit either because of the sheer amounts of manuscripts that were created as Christianity was being spread.  It would be very illogical to think that the church could get hold of every single manuscript and change them.

As always, questions, comments, and discussions are welcome.  Have a great Good Friday and remember it’s Good for us that Jesus died for our sins.


Evolution On Trial: Fossils Take the Stand

April 4, 2012

Last Call for Fossils.  Fossils, where are you at?  Apparently the fossil record is in danger of not showing up for court and being held in contempt.  It’s about time.  Sorry for the bad humor….  The next witness to take the stand is the fossil record.  The fossil record is most likely the most over used evidence for Evolution today.   We will take a closer look at the fossil record and see why it does not make a good witness/evidence for evolution either.  I will address the fossil record in 2 parts, ape-men fossils, and the rest of the animal fossils, specifically transitional fossils.

First, lets examine the transitional fossils and define what a transitional fossil is.  A transition fossil is a has characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. 1  There is some debate as to what is a transitional fossil and what is not.  Supporters of Evolution say that every fossil is a transitional fossil in some capacity.  Several months ago someone tried to explain the fossil record to me as a blank line, that was continuous.   The gaps or parts missing where just not found in the fossil record.

As some one who is skeptical of evolution, I am looking for more in the fossil record that tightly connects fossils between different genus species, which is what the claims of Evolution make.  In other words, more of the evidence that macro-evolution is valid.  So at one point I would say that yes, there are transitional fossils that show a change from one type of prehistoric turtle to another turtle or one type of prehistoric horse to a more modern style horse.

In Darwin’s theory of Evolution he acknowledge himself that in order for his own theory to be proven it would have to be found true in the fossil record. 2  These types of fossils he was hoping to find have yet to be found.     You may have seen pictures of the famous tree of life drawings that Darwin and evolution supporters have used to explain.  The simplified drawing in my blog comes from a book by Chris Sherrod. 3  It is meant to serve as a simple example of the tree of life, other drawings are often more complicated.

I have repeatedly asked people to give me examples of transitional fossils between species and I get 2 responses typically.  First, there are none, because fossils are hard to come by and the transitional ones have been destroyed due to fossils becoming fuel for us greedy humans to use up as energy.  Secondly often bad examples start popping up.  I’ve been told to look at Wikipedia, I’ve been told look at videos on YouTube that people have created with a type of “flip book” effect, and I’ve been shown pictures of prehistoric animals that could pass for a modern-day type of animal.   Here is why I call these bad examples.  The list on Wikipedia is there, and it is long, BUT, most of the pictures of transitional fossils are drawings, artist interpretations, not even based on real fossils found.  There are a few small bones, that are from incomplete remains, but most are drawings.  The YouTube video that is highly pushed also falls under the same boat.  They are drawings.  The pictures of actual fossils found I can easily take a few seconds on each one and call it a member of one of the species that we have today.

Every once in a while someone will bring up the Archaeopteryx, which was discovered 2 years after Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.  You can see from the picture that it is a very interesting fossil for more than one reason.  It is complete and in good condition and appears to be a combination of a reptile and a bird.   Evolutionist said this was a true transitional fossil and crowned it as evidence.  But since it was found in 1861 a majority of scientists believe now that it is most likely a strange type of bird for the following reasons.

1. It was not really a good transitional fossil, because of the fully formed wings and fully formed tail it looks more like a creature that would stand as a different animal, not one in transition.   It’s wings, tail, and claws suggest it was a type of bird possible related to the liaoningornis, recently discovered.

2. The Archaeopteryx was dated to be in the Jurassic period in which birds had already been established in by thousands of pre-dated fossils.  It doesn’t fit the time sequence if birds had already evolved.  HE must have been a “late bloomer.”

3. Lastly, there has only been 1 fossil found of the Archaeopteryx.  It is in the Natural History Museum in Berlin, and not a standard re-occurring fossil that we find all over the place. 4

The Fossil Record does not look good for supporting Evolution.  Scientists know this and that is why they have come up with some alternate theories about the fossil record, trying to fit  a square (Evolution) into a round hole (The fossil record).  In 1972 Steven Jay Gould & Niles Eldredge  proposed a theory called “Punctuated Equilibrium.”  This is the idea that evolution happened in quick  “spurts”  rather than over a gradual slow process.   There are 2 problems with this theory;

1. There are no transitional fossils found that support this theory.  It would be absurd to think that the organisms would change over night.

2. P.E. goes against all current knowledge we have with DNA and adaption.  For an organism to change like that would  go against all DNA and genetic science that we know about. 5

Going back through the layers of rock there is an interesting discovery between the pre-Cambrian ad Cambrian time periods.  In the pre-Cambrian rock there are few fossils and most of the fossils are invertebrates, but at the dating of the Cambrian rock there seems to be a this enormous amount of fossils of many different kinds and types.  This time has been called the Cambrian explosion, because it appears that these fossils came out from nowhere.  Each side of the argument between creationists and Evolution supporters have their own ideas about why this is so.

I will look at the ape-men fossils in the next post, I don’t want to get to long-winded with this post.  If you have any questions, comments, rebuttals please feel free to leave them.

End Notes:

1. – http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutevolution/a/TransitionalFossilsEvolution.htm

2. – Darwin, Charles, “The Origin of Species” pg. 152

3. – Sherrod, Chris, “Faith, Fact, and Reason Study #5 The Flaws of Evolution” pg. 28

4. – Rhodes, Ron, “10 Things You Should Know About the Evolution and Creation Debate.” Chapter 4

5. – Rhodes, Ron, “10 Things You Should Know About the Evolution and Creation Debate.” Chapter 4


Evolution on Trial: Mutations Take the Stand

April 3, 2012

The next witness we will look at in the case of Evolution is mutations.  I am not talking about bringing any of the X-Men to the stand either.  In the Theory of Evolution mutations and natural selection are two of the main pillars that hold up the case for evolution.  We will look at natural selection in a separate post in the future.

According to Britannica:

Mutation – Alteration in the genetic material of a cell that is transmitted to the cell’s offspring. Mutations may be spontaneous or induced by outside factors (mutagens). They take place in the genes, occurring when one base is substituted for another in the sequence of bases that determines the genetic code, or when one or more bases are inserted or deleted from a gene. Many mutations are harmless, often masked by the presence of a dominant normal gene. Some have serious consequences; for example, a particular mutation inherited from both parents results in sickle-cell anemia. Only mutations that occur in the sex cells (eggs or sperm) can be transmitted to the individual’s offspring. Alterations caused by these mutations are usually harmful. In the rare instances in which a mutation produces a beneficial change, the percentage of organisms with this gene will tend to increase until the mutated gene becomes the norm in the population. In this way, beneficial mutations serve as the raw material of evolution. 1

The last two sentences in the paragraph above dealing with beneficial mutations “being the raw material in Evolution” when the “mutated gene becomes the norm in the population” is what I will take issue with.  This is where the credibility of mutations, losses it power to influence Evolution.

First, lets look at some facts about mutations.

1. Mutations are rare in the first place because an enzyme acts as a sort of proofreader during DNA replication to check for mistakes.  When a genetic mistake is found, the tendency is to correct it.

2. Mutations distort, destroy, or damage the current DNA structure and do not improve or add to it.  As John Morris, faculty of the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) describes “It‘s instructive to try to imagine what must happen to turn a cell into an invertebrate, or a worm into a fish, or a fish into an amphibian, etc. List the structural changes needed. A cell doesn‘t have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source. Mutations do produce novel changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking a lot, in fact, asking too much.” 2

The final question is are mutations beneficial?  There seems to be a handful of examples floating around as proof that they are.  Perhaps you may have heard of some of the following examples;  two copies of the mutant sickle-cell anemia gene cause illness, one copy confers resistance to malaria,  the Pima, a Native American tribe that have to be on a special diet to avoid being morbidly over-weight, artificial breeding of crops and livestock that produce greater yields and drought resistance crops. 3   These hypothetical examples of beneficial mutations were all discovered in a lab and through human experiments.  All of these examples did not produce a new animal genus from another, in other words they fall into the label of adaptions rather than macro-evolution.

You can see that mutations sound exciting but, when you take a closer look at mutations there is really a lot of talk and clearly not enough action behind the idea of mutations.  One such objection to this is that the mutations take place so slowly that it i often hard to see and observe in our human lifetime or over the last several hundred years of scientific study.  This objection will lead us to the next to the witness, the fossils, and a closer look at the fossil record.  As always, questions, comments, and discussions are welcome.

End Notes:

1. – http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=mutations

2. – Morris, John D. , “Can the Small Changes  We See Add Up to the Big Changes Evolution Needs?”, Article 2002

3.  – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation


Kentucky Wildcats, Mega Millions, and Jesus

April 2, 2012

I’m pulling out an old posting today from a few years back, but just changed the information to fit with this years winner, the Kentucky Wildcats.

Well congratulations to Kentucky for winning their 8th national championship in basketball.  How did you do, our your brackets this year? Did you enter into any contests or competitions with friends? A few of the other youth pastors and I had a group and had a good time talking smack to each other. This year I picked 41 out of 63 possible games, had 3 of the final 4 teams in my bracket and picked Kentucky to win it all.  Pretty stupid considering that I didn’t watch a single college basketball came all season.

Every time March Madness rolls around I can’t help but to think about Jesus and the prophecies in the Bible. There is a lesson to be learned in the odds and mathematics of both the NCAA tournament and with Jesus fulfilling prophecy Here’s what I mean:

According to BookofOdds.com the odds of picking every single game in the tournament correctly are 1 to 35,360,000,000.  This is why some of the companies, like Dr Pepper and Yahoo.com, can afford to create excitement by offering a 1 Million Dollar prize if you enter and pick every single game correctly. It’s all about the odds for them and the money involved.  Playing the lottery has better odds in most cases.  Recently the MegaMillions Lottery had reached the highest it had ever been at an estimated 640 million dollars.   According to the official odds you had a better chance at winning the Mega Millions lottery because the odds at picking it were 1 to 175,000,000.  Much less than the NCAA brackets.

Well now that brings us to Jesus and the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. There are over 60 prophecies about this promised Messiah and details of His birth, birthplace, life, death, teachings, His nature, His resurrection, and events after burial, just to name a few. All these are documented in Josh McDowell’s foundational book called “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” or His updated version “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” (chapter 8, pages 164-202) Josh McDowell was an atheist who set out to disprove Christianity and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but as he searched for answers he found out through his discoveries that indeed there was one true living God.

In McDowell’s reasearch he brings into the light the work of Peter Stoner in his book Science Speaks. Stoner does a great job at the probability and statistical mathematics of Jesus and fulfilled prophecy. Stoner took just 8 of the probabilities of the Jewish Messiah and figured out the odds at which Jesus or anyone would fulfill them. He came up with a rather large number. The odds were 1 in 10 to the 17 power. That would be a 1 with 17 zero’s after it. [1,00,000,000,000,000,000 ] Stoner gives a great visual example of that number, because it is so big and hard for us to wrap our minds around. Imagine that you fill the entire state of Texas with Silver Dollars 2 feet high. You mark one Dollar with an “X” and then blindfold a man and have him take one guess and find the one dollar with a “X” on it. Keep in mind that this is only 8 of the prophecies and not the entire lot. Stoner’s research has been examined for years now and the mathematics in his work has been found to be solid.

Well, where do we go from here? Let me just encourage you whether you are a believer or not, to take a closer look at the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. I am quiet sure you will see something different with Him than with any other religious leader in the world. There is a difference with Jesus because He was who He claimed to be, God.

As always your comments, questions, snide remarks are welcome.


Evolution of Trial: Gene Flow Take the Stand

April 1, 2012

Since the Supreme court was in the news recently with ObamaCare I figured I would use the analogy with the next few posts on Evolution and show how the evidence and facts don’t make good witnesses in a case defending Evolution.  The first witness that we will put on the stand will be Gene Flow.

Gene flow is the transfer of genetic material between separate populations. Many organisms are divided into separate populations that have restricted contact with each other, possibly leading to reproductive isolation. Many things can fragment a species into a collection of isolated populations. For example, a treacherous mountain pass may cut off one herd of mountain goats from another. 1  Gene Flow is a process that describes how the genes are keep local or spread from different plants and animals of the same family.

Gene Flow is often refered to in the human population and see by very easily in America especially in the large metropolitan areas where there is a highly diverse population of people from different areas of the world.  You can see the beautiful combinations of skin colors from the different people who get married and have children.

For example if a missionary’s family were to move to a remote location in a different part of the world and their family slowly is mixed through generations into the local population.  You might see skin color changes, height and weight changes, facial features or other features of the local population.  The same can be said of other plants and animals that would be closed off from others.  If Gene Flow is restricted you will see a population become less and less diverse because the amount of available information from the total Gene Pool is mixed in with the smaller population.   The Gene Pool just represents the total number of possible alleles (pairs of genes) for that particular chromosome within a family or species.

The human Gene Pool contains a massive 40,000 different varieties of genes that can be mixed in many different combinations within the 46 chromosomes we have.  If this is confusing to you, I suggest getting a deeper look at Gene Flow and the other terms online or in a simple biology book.   I will be looking at genes and the science over the next few posts.

Now that we have a basic knowledge of Gene Flow and the Gene Pool lets look at why it makes a poor witness on the stand defending evolution.  No matter how much the gene’s “flow” it will not ever produce new genetic material.  In the above examples with goats and humans, in all the cases the goats are still goats, and the people still people.  This all fits into the umbrella of micro-evolution or adaption.  There are no invertebrates that become vertebrates, or amphibians that become reptiles.  Gene Flow of this type has never been seen or accomplished with a lab.  The DNA will not allow it.

What about Hybrids?  Someone might respond with the examples of the Liger (Lion and Tiger) or another type of hybrid.   These type of examples of Gene Flow are so rare that they do not affect the total population of a genus and do not survive in the world without human intervention by care in a zoo.  There are no known hybrids between different genuses, only between sub-species like a  Bengal tiger and Siberian tiger.  A hybrid of goat and sheep for example that are closely related, but when they mate the children are usually still-born and if they survive they are always infertile. 2   People have experimented with different types of hybrids in the labs, but when left in the wild the animals do not choose to mingle.  These hybrids would fall more into the area of mutations and we will look at that witness on the stand in an upcoming post.

One possible rebuttal that someone might give you defending evolution is that “given enough time over millions and millions of years these little changes add up to changes in genuses and new genetic material is born.”  This is false, because if no new genetic material can from within a short-term, then the same is expected with the long-term.  Time is a distraction here and has nothing to do with the process of Gene Flow and Genetic Drift.

For example: 0+0+0+0 = 0 and at the same time 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 = 0

According to Genesis 1:24 “And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. “  God created the animals separately.  I realize that we can’t view the creation story just like we can’t observe evolution in the past, but according to the evidence we do have about plant and animal life now, you have to honestly ask yourself what does the evidence we do have now support?  We will cover creation in later blogs.  As always questions, comments, and discussions are welcome.

References:

1 – http://www.answers.com/topic/gene-flow#ixzz1pcMgvfea

2. – http://www.answers.com/topic/sheep-goat-hybrid

3.  – Sherrod, Chris; Faith, Fact, and Reason: Study #5 The Flaws of Evolution pgs. 75-76


Defining Terms: Presupposition

March 22, 2012

dictionaryA hard word to say, but not that hard to understand.   It sounds like a disease to me,  I hope it’s not contagious.   According to Merriam-Webster,  Presupposition: is to suppose beforehand or to require as an antecedent in logic or fact.  Using it in a sentence,  I might say; “Before you read my blog, my presupposition is that you like to learn about apologetics.” or “It is a presupposition that you don’t have a problem seeing blood if you are going to be nurse.”

In apologetics there are many presuppositions that both sides have when it comes to debates and conversations.  For example as a Christian after I have examined and study the Bible, I have a presupposition that the Bible is inspired by God and that it is trustworthy and valid.  I have a presupposition that miracles are possible and that God exists.  Someone else who takes an atheist position might have a presupposition that there is nothing within our universe that is not physical.

Presuppositions are often foundations that we set at the base of our knowledge and can add-on to our beliefs on top of our presuppositions.  Most of the time if a person has a presupposition, they have locked in their trust or belief in that presupposition and it is hard to move them away from what they have already come to find true for themselves.

However, if you really want to “put a pebble in someone else’s shoe” to make them think about their beliefs and worldview attacking their presuppositions are a great way to make some progress.  For example, if I were talking with a Mormon and I wanted them to see that Christianity is the one true worldview a good place to start would be to show the Mormon the faults, contradictions, and failed prophecies within the Book of Mormon and it’s leaders through history.  If I can show them that the book that they presuppose is true is false, then I have made significant progress in knocking down the pillars that support their Mormon worldview.

As I mentioned before that often times, someone will assume something is true based on their presupposition about a certain related subject, even without knowing that something in an absolute certainty.  I might read a difficult passage of scripture in the Bible, but because I have found the Bible to be trustworthy and reliable as a whole, I will take it for truth even if I can’t explain or understand it yet.  Both Christians and atheists alike must be careful not to let the cart come before horse in the formulating of their premise and conclusions based on their presuppositions.  You can quickly get into circular reasoning, which is a bad debate technique.

If you have any questions, comments, or examples you want to share, please feel free to leave comments.

Biography

1 – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presuppose>


The Evolution of Evolution

March 21, 2012

I want to spend a few posts examining the claims of evolution and breaking it down piece by piece, but before I do that I want to give you a basic understanding of what evolution is and how it has changed over the years.  Evolution is one the most popular alternative answers to the question of where did we come from, outside of a theistic of creation answer.  A 2010 gallop poll has shown that 40% of Americans believe in creation, 38% believe that a supernatural being created the world through the process of evolution, and 16% believe in a naturalist evolution without the help of the supernatural. 1

Evolution Belief ChartThe word evolution can mean different things depending on who is using the word.  Evolution simply means a change over time.  People often speak of the evolution of a certain model of car or how computer technology has evolved.  Most people think about the evolution in biology when they hear or use the term.  When you discuss evolution it is important to understand the distinction between two different types of evolutionary.  Micro-Evoluion where minor changes within a species (family group) occur, but do not give rise to new gene material.  I call this type of evolution adaptions.  We see this everyday within varieties of plants and animals such as dogs, frogs, garden vegetables, and trees for example.  Macro-evolution is  larger scale change from species (family group) to another species (family group) that is more complex and higher through mutation and natural selection.  No one has ever witnessed this type of evolution before and this is the type of evolution that is claimed through Darwin’s theory.  From this point forward, when you see the word Evolution, it will refer to Macro-Evolution.

Evolution is a purely physical/naturalistic explanation to the origin of life on earth and of all matter in the known universe.  Charles Darwin has been known as the Father of evolution, but he wasn’t the first to contemplate a purely physical origin, during the fourth and fifth centuries some Greek philosophers like Thales, Leucippus, and Democritus had detailed explanations of how the universe came together through random forces rather than by design. 2  Darwin also had a partner, Alfred Wallace, who worked with Darwin on the theory of evolution, but Wallace began to doubt it was adequate to explain obvious features of the human race.  You don’t hear much of Wallace and His disagreement with Darwin now.

About 30 years ago the theory of Evolution begin to be looked at more closely by public and private school systems  because of the rise of Christian apologists in the mid-century that began to challenge the views of Evolution.  Parents and school boards had Evolution taken out of school textbooks or demanded that other textbooks that taught other ideas like Intelligent Design as equally as Evolution to be used.  This seem to waken those who supported Evolution like Dawkins, Hawking, Dennett, and Harris, to push back even harder with newer evidences and proofs with the new advancements that science was making recently.  Many of these newer evidences are published in scientific journals, books, web blogs and are used by many highschool and university teacher to continually bombard students through indoctrination.  Most of the scientific claims today that are labeled “support for Evolution” are speculative at best, leaving the majority of the proof on assumptions and premises.  They are lean on supporting facts and rely on your presuppositions and how you interpret the data.  I can back up that last thought with the evidence that despite all this “new” evidence for Evolution the debate still wages on.  The case had not been closed in the slightest.  Open-minded intelligent theists are not abandoning their beliefs in support of evolution.  You can reference this in the Gallop chart.

The New Atheists have been on the offense as of late to attempt to snuff out any religious beliefs by Christians. Their words towards religious beliefs have been harsh.  Richard Dawkins has even had a college circuit speaking tour where has offered a debaptizing ceremony for those who wish to renounce their faith in God. 3  The boldness at which these new claims are being made by those who support Evolution is very high.  It reminds me of the axiom, that “the bigger and more important the lie, often the greater the enthusiasm of which it must be sold with.”  Not to worry though, because there are a new group of well-educated Christians in both the field of science and philosophy that have risen to the challenge by the New Atheists.

Over the next few posts I will examine Evolution  and break down the processes and talking points that many supporters of Evolution use to champion their beliefs.  Evolution must account for three “Big Bangs;” the origin of matter, the origin or life, and the origin of our consciences.  We will also look at the processes like genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, non-random mating, as well as natural selection.  If you don’t understand those words, don’t worry I will explain them to you one at a time in future posts.  If you support evolution and have something you want me to look at please leave a comment here and I will add it to the list of topics of discussions with Evolution.  I will do my best to give you an accurate view of Evolution, I don’t want to try to make any red-herrings out of the other side of the argument.  As always your questions, comments, and discussions are welcomed.

Biography

1 – http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

2- Sherrod, Chris – Fact, Faith, and Reason Study #5 The Flaws of Evolution, pg. 27

3 – Marrow, Jonathan; McDowell, Sean – Is God Just A Human Invention?