Click on the images below
for more information on each topic
|
One view says this:
|
CLICK
on images for details
|
But there's more
to the picture:
|
| Evolution explains the origin and diversity
of life. |
 |
There are
compelling reasons to believe in Divine Creation, and no evidence to deny or disprove it. |
| Life is the result of a chance
interaction of chemicals and lightning in the Earth's early atmosphere. |
 |
The probability of life occurring on its own is so
infinitesimally small that it would be treated as an impossibility in any other
branch of science or math. |
| Given enough time, anything can
happen. |
 |
In some types of probabilities, an outcome must occur.
In others there is no reason to assume anything will occur. |
| Evolution shows that life began on its own. |
 |
Evolution is a process of change in LIVING organisms.
Even if it's true, this provides no basis to conclude that INANIMATE matter turned into
living organisms on its own, which is an entirely different process
called abiogenesis. |
| Darwin's work explains the origin of
species. |
 |
Darwin himself admitted many shortcomings in his theory and
assumed it would be supported by fossil evidence that still has yet to be found. |
| Miller and Urey created
the beginnings of life in a
laboratory in the 1950's. |
 |
All they created were some basic amino acids, a building
block of proteins. There was nothing even remotely close to DNA, a single cell or
any life functions. |
| Life was discovered on Mars in 1996,
adding to the evidence for life forming on its own. |
 |
The "fossil bacteria" was at least 100 times
smaller than the smallest bacteria on earth and contained a mixture of chemicals commonly found on
meteorites. |
| Gould's
thesis on shells proves natural selection. |
 |
Stephen Wolfram, a pioneer in cellular
automata, says Gould's thesis has mathematical errors and "that
natural selection is not all that important." |
| Richard Dawkins' many books demonstrate that
life is purely the result of chance and adaptation. |
 |
Dawkins' writings have great appeal to
atheists and those seeking for answers that deny God, but are filled with inconsistencies and
incomplete conclusions. |
| Life evolved from the very simple to
the highly complex. |
 |
Even the simplest of life forms are highly sophisticated
pieces of biological machinery whose origins we cannot explain. |
| The adaptation and natural selection
prove evolution. |
 |
Adaptation and natural selection prove
"micro-evolution," small variations in existing features that may even already
exist in the DNA. This does not prove "macro-evolution," the creation of
new organs, species or orders. |
| Common features found in animals
demonstrate common ancestry. |
|
Common features can just as logically demonstrate a common
Designer. |
| Early man had ape-like hair coverings,
corroborating our descent from apes. |
 |
Since bones are all we have in the fossil record,
representations of tissue and hair appearance can be drawn to look like anything the
artist wants you to believe. |
| Evolutionary transitions from early
life forms to modern man, often shown in an "evolutionary tree," illustrate the gradual change from
early life to modern man. |
 |
The fossil record lacks evidence to explain
all the orders and species that we find in life. A new
theory called "punctuated equilibrium" was proposed to explain the lack of
evidence, but the problem is thus that it too is unsupported by evidence. |
| Evolution explains the origin of life
and is a scientific fact. |
 |
Evolution is used by some to support an unprovable belief that life began
on its own. It interprets the evidence we have in the only way possible to support
that belief. It ignores opposing evidence. There have been instances of
evidence being exaggerated, falsely interpreted and even fabricated. Evolution
theory fails
to investigate the alternate hypothesis that life didn't form on its own because Divine
Creation is defined to be outside the bounds of science, even if it is the truth. |
There is nothing wrong with holding beliefs that are based on faith rather than
complete evidence. This is the nature of all religions.
When evolution is used to explain life's origin and
assumes an unprovable
position
(or faith) that God did not create life, is it then still science or has it
just stepped over the boundaries of science to become a humanist or
atheistic religion? If it's religion, why is it taught in our schools? If it's science, why don't
we teach all that we know, and do not know, about the possibilities for
life's origins and diversity with complete openness and
honesty?
The non-believer looks at the evidence and sees a universe
that clearly is the result of natural processes. The believer looks at the same evidence and sees a universe
that clearly is the result of Intelligent design. Is it the evidence that leads us to our
conclusions, or is it our beliefs about God that determine how we are able to see the
evidence?
