| They love to quote that statement by Charles Darwin. But Darwin might have misspoken when making that statement, This is not proof that the whole theory of evolution is wrong just because of one statement by Darwin. Some micro organisms if well adapted to their envirnoment would not have evolved into anything else.
We see little signs of ants and cockrouches evolving from their fossil like images into modern alternatives.
The problem I find with the Creationist Science people is that 90 percent of their "teaching" is about finding faults with the theory of evolution, especially the older works of people like Darwin.
They also use new findings to prove that the Bible is correct. For example: Scientists measured the depth of cosmic dust at one location on the moon and then, based on that measurement, determined that the moon started collecting dust 10 thousand years ago. Aha! proof that the earth and moon was created Ten Thousand years ago and not millions of years ago. So they claim. The Bible suggested a time frame of about 10 thousand years ago (based on the estimated time between Adam and Jesus - due to passages about who begat whom).
Even scientists can find some faults with the original theory of evolution and they have made corrections in the theory and have come up with more modern versions. It is a on-going study as new evidence is uncovered. But finding fault with some of the older concepts is not proof that the only alternitive for evolution is creation by a God ( Higher Intelligence).
Which is what the Creationist bases their science on.
So far I have seen them present any facts about how God created the universe scientifically. They have presented no scientific facts about how a higher intelligence could have created a Adam out of clay by breathing upon that idol image of that God. No scientific evidence that pottery can "come alive" as a flesh and blood person. Where is their science about how things came into being via "being made and molded" by the Voice of a Higher Intelligence,. or "whatever"?
The fact that people can build working cars and computers is not absolute proof that the universe was made the same way, or life on earth, just because you can find designs and patterns in both. The idea of "designer people who make designer drugs" is an interesting idea but where is the proof of the pudding when it comes to being a science, or a scientific fact.
After they bash some of the shortcomings and point out the missing links in the theory of evolution they then revert back to "faith" and "belief" in order not to demonstrate the science of creation a human life from damp clay. |