<p>Just a few more thoughts on this. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Prior to looking @ the logic of the Creation story vs. the Darwin story, I really hadn’t given this much thought. Ham’s contention that most people in today’s culture have grown up worshipping Darwin’s dream and have considered science’s embrace of his ideas as “fact.” It’s in our science books, teachers told us, therefore it must be “true.” </p></li>
<li><p>Bright folks like Dr. Collins … and many more have invested huge amounts of emotional, educational, intellectual and professional capital in Darwin’s notions, ( and very little in examining the potential truths of biblical explanation. It’s become de facto “religion.” It is these biblical explanations that Hamm and his scientists (and increasingly, many other modern day scientists) are committed to examining. </p></li>
<li><p>And as such, here is perhaps THE issue for science … i.e. one’s hypothesis determines one’s direction and conclusions. Said another way, where you begin will determine where you finish. Many scientists are committed to proving evolution and its caveats to be “true” (and Creationism thus to be false). And huge resources are invested in this path. Concurrently, others, even fellow scientists who believe Creationism merits exploration are demeaned and ostracized. Doubt this? Check out how Prof. Behe’s fellow bio-profs and department qualify his presence among them at Lehigh U. He is a major proponent of the possibility of Creationism as meriting scientific consideration. </p></li>
<li><p>One of the major confusions here is terminology … evolution is NOT natural selection. There are vast variations in dogs. That is natural selection. There is no known illustration of being able to verify that while a wolf has morphed into a poodle, none of a poodle becoming a siamese cat. </p></li>
<li><p>Genetics is illuminating in this discussion and search for THE truth of where we’ve come from (and consequently what is our purpose/reason for being). Creationism assumes all genetic coding information for all living things was all there from the get-go. God made it whole. Conversely, and think about this … all in the theory of evolution, all genetic code … ALL of it … had to come from inanimate matter. And “grown” since then. Now for anyone grasping the enormous complexity AND the rules of genetics as we know them now, that is a huge leap. You see, all evidence shows that genetic code is lost, not gained in each pairing. So while there are nearly infinite genetic combinations, NO NEW CODE/genetic info is added. A poodle has less genetic code than does a wolf. </p></li>
<li><p>So how in the world (literally) would a molecule ever become a man? A rock a rock star? </p></li>
<li><p>And the flood is another entire matter. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>The point is that Dr. Collins places God in his box. And it does not work. God’s is way way bigger, is my informed guess. If he can create the stars … why would he even need evolution? Study, study, study … and it becomes ever more clear. </p>
<p>And remember, where we start the exploration will determine where we finish. If we assume the biblical narrative is myth, then there is no chance to find it true. If we hypothesize it as possible? The explanations become remarkably, and scientifically crystal clear. Not so in examining the idea of evolution. Rather than hanging together, it disintegrates.</p>
<p>P.S. The initiative for focusing on Creation vs. evolution is simply this … validation of the truth and accuracy … from a scientific perspective … of the former and the massive “holes” and scientific falsehoods portrayed as fact (ex: the old drawing in our science books portraying monkey morphing to man. Now we know that was fully science-FICTION. The big picture is that validating Creationism will facilitate evangelizing a culture that is heavy into science, little into God, Jesus, Holy Spirit and the purpose of resurrection, need for redemption, etc. All the crap the culture tells us.</p>