Apologetics — Origins

The web sites in this list are picked to highlight my bias. There is little here for the defense of Darwin and Evolution. I started out accepting the “fact” of Evolution as it is taught in schools, but could not reconcile Darwinism with the Bible. I read Philip E. Johnson’s Darwin on Trial and lost my last reason to question the Bible. The intellectual high ground is held by those who question Evolution as there is little or no evidence to support Evolution. The defense of Evolution is founded on a faith in a philosophy of naturalistic materialism where there is no god or creator. This brings Evolution into the realm of religion and leaves science behind.

The essays in these web sites are mostly written by educated and literate people. Many have advanced degrees and teach in major universities. These are not “ignorant rural fundamentalist preachers” trying to prevent their flock from straying.

There is a great irony in the recent Kansas dispute over teaching Creationism along with Evolution. In the Scopes trial the issue was banning the teaching of Evolution. The Kansas dispute was over teaching anything other than Evolution. When the debate over Evolution and Creation is stripped of its religious content—as it is in most of these web sites—then we can discuss the scientific merits without the emotional baggage religion brings.

It helps to define a few terms as many people tend to conflate concepts that should be kept separate to properly understand the issues in this debate. The first is to confuse Natural Selection with Evolution. Natural Selection or survival of the fittest, is proposed as a mechanism for instantiating Evolution, but it is not Evolution. Natural Selection is the mechanism at work in this fallen world that favors the survival of the species most fit for a particular environment. Within species, the effect is to favor those genetic traits that most aid a particular species in surviving within a particular environment. Evolution postulates changes in the genetic code that causes new species to appear. The adaptation of a species by the favored expression of particular traits is called Micro Evolution while an actual change to the genetic code is called Macro Evolution. Christians have no objection to Micro Evolution. In fact, Micro Evolution can be called an effect of the fallen nature of this world and is consistent with the fundamental laws of nature such as entropy. Macro Evolution, on the other hand, is contradicted by the Bible and the known laws of nature.

Another distinction needs to be made between forensic science and empirical science. Empirical science deals with phenomena that can be tested in a laboratory. Experiments can be designed to test the effect of input elements and events and the tests can be repeated to confirm the results. Forensic science deals with events that have happened in the past and can not be repeated in the present. The Creation–Evolution debate is dealt with by forensic science so the evidence is not subject to laboratory testing, but must be collected and analyzed for consistency, logic, clarity, etc. It is important in this debate to leave presuppositions behind. If the evidence fits one’s theory, great. If it does not, then it is not useful to try to explain away the errant evidence. It is better to try a new theory that fits the observable evidence better than the old theory.

Intelligent Design Network — Intelligent Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks objectivity in origins science.

Origins Home Page — Essays on Creation and Evolution

ACLU Sues Pa. School District Over ‘Intelligent Design’ Curriculum — Another ironic example of Evolutionists trying to prevent the teaching of anything other than Evolution. The claim that Evolution has an exclusive claim on truth is certainly not Post Modern. So why should Christians be excoriated for making exclusive claims to truth?

Should Evolution be Taught in Schools? — Round One of a debate between Phillip E. Johnson and Philip Kitcher

Should Evolution be Taught in Schools? — Round Two of a debate between Phillip E. Johnson and Philip Kitcher

Should Evolution be Taught in Schools? — Round Three of a debate between Phillip E. Johnson and Philip Kitcher

When Science and Beliefs Collide — Fuzzy thinking and lack of understanding of the issues allows Evolutionist to say they are right because Creationist are dumb. Of course, Evolution is not proven because it’s proponents are smart and Creationism is not false because many of it’s proponents are dumb. This is an example of the use of ridcule rather than science to defend Evolution. What this article says about world views, postmodernism, and rote religous belief is quite valid! Teaching critical thinking is also supressed when Evolution is not allowed to be questioned. So teach both Evolution and Intelligent Design with lists of solid evidence favorable and unfavorable to each. This can turn into a good case study in critical thinking if done right as in this debate between Phillip E. Johnson and William Provine.

Top Ten Creation Myths — Does NOT include Evolution, the creation myth for atheists.

Unintelligible Redesign — By William Saletan. Notice the condescending attitude in this and the following two articles toward those who do not believe Evolution to be true. Darwinists refuse to accept that Evolution dogma can be questioned. Mr. Saletan gets it backwards. It is Evolution that is lacking in science. He doesn’t grasp the concepts explained above, which is common for Evolution’s lay apologists. He rightly says that a good theory explains and predicts, but that does not make the theory valid as shown by Ptolemy’s Theory that explained and predicted but was proven wrong with better observation.

The “New” Creationism — by Robert Wright. Mr. Wright in “Intellectual father No. 1” does not mention “Punctuated Equilibrium” the Evolutionist answer to the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. And he does not answer the problem—for Evolutionists—of stasis in the genome. In “Intellectual father No. 2” he gets Evolution and Natural Selection confused. In “Intellectual father No. 3” he dismisses mathematics from the argument as it disagrees with Evolutionary Biologists’ expectations!

Science Fiction — by Gregg Easterbrook. Mr. Easterbrook makes two errors in his Daily Express article titled Science Fiction. One he assumes that Evolution is proven. Two he confuses macro and micro evolution. He does admit that we can not know the origin of life, but he does say that we know as a proven fact that life evolved from some primordial starting point. His big error is to say that DNA spontaneously changes. The overwhelming evidence is that it does not change. Stasis is the governing paradigm for DNA. No positive mutation has ever been observed and no transitional forms have ever been observed in the fossil record. Natural selection selects traits that are already present in the gene pool. There is general agreement that micro evolution is governed by natural selection. There is no general agreement with macro evolution’s assumption that we are what we are by random chance.

Big–Bang Theology — God makes a cosmological comeback. By Jim Holt. Interesting overview of the issues.

Cosmology Confronts the Creator by Hugh Ross — Is the universe infinite and by extension god?

Leadership U — Type “origins” in search box for a long list of essays on Creation and Evolution.

Access Research Network — Advocate for Creation by Design

Science and Christianity — Just to show I'm not completely biased, here are a vast number of links for pro, con, agnostic, etc. views on science, origins, evolution, creation, etc.

Darwin's disciples puncture Urban Legends — This stuff doesn’t do the Christian cause much good. It does appear to do the creators of these Urban Legends much “good” as their books sell quite well.

Christian Folklore — a.k.a. Christian Urban Legends. This is another example of an atheist pointing out obvious errors. The theme is: If “Christians” are telling so many falsehoods, how can we believe anything they say? Good point, if you ask me.

Here is a web page dedicated to Christian Urban Legends — If later day “prophets” had to post a bond to be returned when the prophecy is fulfilled, we would all be better off. The forfeited bonds should be used for missions and evangelism.

Truth or Fiction — This is the primier Internet site for hoaxes, urban legends, and raw rumors passed around in email. The author is a Christian. His statement of faith at the bottom of the linked page is one I would subscribe to. The Bible explicitly requires that our Minds be used in His worship. Christianity is a religion based on evidence and not on conjecture or subjective experience.

Google Search using <Origins Creation “first things” Evolution> turned up to much for me to peruse right now

God and Science — Evidence for God from Science

God and Science — Evidence for God from Science — This site exists for the purpose of providing evidence for God’s existence, His care and love for mankind, and His provision for joyful living both now and into eternity through His Son, Jesus Christ.

The Evolution Controversy — The issue: What restrictions does the First Amendment place on the ability of states and school boards to restrict the teaching of evolution or encourage the teaching of “creation science” in the public school classrooms?
The Bible does not suggest anything about cosmology other than the earth being a ball hanging in the heavens, so why does this web page repeat the canard that The Bible says the sun revolves around the Earth?
This web page also suggests that The Big Bang undermines “Fundamentalist” beliefs. I would suggest that it does more to support creationism and undermine naturalistic materialism as The Big Bang theory suggests there is a definite beginning.

Interview with Calvin DeWitt — Yes, there are Left Wing Fundamentalist Christians! Professor DeWitt argues, “My own conclusion is that a scientist is freer if she or he starts with the belief that God exists. This allows us to stay within any theoretical constructs our data will support, and does not drive us to fill the gaps with weaker theory or speculative materialism”.

Last One in the Gene Pool — It’s no surprise that humans are smarter than roundworms. Well, most humans, anyway. by Ed Spivey Jr.

	Email Me	Home Page
Updated 7 January 2005 © Copyright 2000–2005 Stephen Daniel McLeod