No one denies “micro-evolution” — i.e., species adapting to their environment. It is macro-evolution that is in trouble. The Darwinian thesis of “survival of the fittest” turns out to be nothing but a tautology. How do we know existing species were the fittest? Because they survived. Why did they survive? Because they were the fittest.
While clever, this tells us zip about why we have tigers. It is less a scientific theory than a notion masquerading as a fact…
There are other questions Darwinists need to answer. If believing that Christ raised people from the dead is a matter of faith — and it is — is not the Darwinist claim that nature created life out of non-life a matter of faith? If it is science, why can’t scientists replicate it in microcosm in a laboratory?
If scientists know life came from matter and matter from non-matter, why don’t they show us how this was done, instead of asserting it was done, and calling us names for not taking their claims on faith?
Clearly, a continued belief in the absolute truth of Darwinist evolution is but an act of faith that fulfills a psychological need of folks who have rejected God. That picture on the wall of the science class of apes on four legs, then apes on two legs, then homo erectus walking upright is as much an expression of faith as the picture of Adam and Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Hence, if religion cannot prove its claim and Darwinists can’t prove their claims, we must fall back upon reason, which some of us believe is God’s gift to mankind.
And when you consider the clocklike precision of the planets in their orbits about the sun and the extraordinary complexity of the human eye, does that seem to you like the result of random selection or the product of intelligent design?
[HT: Espresso Roast]