Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight

Did you know-Charles Darwin never claimed life evolved by chance.-Biological evolution does not say we came from monkeys or chimps.-Charles Darwin never used the word "evolution" in Origin of Species nor did he use the phrase, survival of the fittest.-Belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible actually allows for the acceptance of biological evolution and common ancestry.-The Genesis phrase, And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind, perfectly matches macroevolution. In other words, macroevolution is actually evolution "within" kinds.-The anti-evolution creationist explanation of microevolution is genetically impossible.-Gravity is not a fact and equally surprising is that it never will be. It, along with evolution, is an explanation based upon facts and verified through testing, i.e., a theory.-God’s commandment to Noah, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish (to refill) the earth (Gen 9:1) was actually given first to Adam (Gen 1:28), and this is in perfect agreement with anthropology.-Scripture reveals the exact height of Noah’s flood, Fifteen cubits (only 22 feet) upward did the waters prevail (Gen 7:20), which is in exact accordance with Orthodox Jewish interpretation and archaeology.-18th century creationists rejected the possibility of the world's sedimentary rocks being remnant global flood sediments. It is actually biblically impossible.-Creation science’s dirty little secret: The one and only proof of a global flood, all layered sedimentary rocks, finds its origins from the dream of a teenager who claimed it was a vision from God.Some of these claims I have not heard before (actually most). How about you? and be honest. This list was created by a Michael Hawley on his evolution/creation website http://www.searchingfortruthwithabrokenflashlight.com and is the author of a new book that has just come out. He claims that a literal interpretation of the Bible based upon biblical inerrancy and infallibility actually conforms to all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution. I am especially intrigued by creation science’s dirty little secret. Has anyone ever heard of this?Best,

Actually, I have a bone to pick with just about every one of these statements.

quote:

---

Charles Darwin never claimed life evolved by chance

​

And this has no bearing at all on whether or not life did evolve by chance, which, incidentally, it didn’t.

---

You don't get it. Many creationists tout this, so Hawley is merely letting a less educated public know this.

quote:

---

Biological evolution does not say we came from monkeys or chimps.
No, it doesn’t. But, the evidence does. This is only a way to comfort people who want to accept evolution but also want to believe that humans didn’t evolve.

---

Sadly, you are wrong. The evidence conforms to Hawley's comment.

quote:

---

Charles Darwin never used the word "evolution" in Origin of Species nor did he use the phrase, survival of the fittest.

​

This is so trivial that I think it was added just to make Hawley’s list look longer than it really is.

---

It looks to me like his target audience are Christians who've had a science education from their religious leaders. In view of this, I'm sure this is not trivial.

quote:

---

Belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible actually allows for the acceptance of biological evolution and common ancestry.

​

Belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible actually allows for the acceptance of (fill in the blank) is pretty much universally true under the Bible-interpreting methodologies used by apologeticists.

---

Many Christians believe the two conflict, so I get it why he's making the claim.

quote:

---

The Genesis phrase, And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind, perfectly matches macroevolution. In other words, macroevolution is actually evolution "within" kinds.

​

...unless, of course, the definition of macroevolution is taken to mean evolution between kinds, as is often the case.

---

The problem is, science rejects your definition.

quote:

---

Furthermore, God made the beasts... doesn’t perfectly match The beasts evolved... anyway.

---

Oh, contraire. First, why would an ancient document even use the word "evolved". Second, from a theistic evolutionist perspective, God did make the beasts but used biological evolution as one of his tools.

quote:

---

Gravity is not a fact and equally surprising is that it never will be. It, along with evolution, is an explanation based upon facts and verified through testing, i.e., a theory.

​

There are so many conflicting views on what a fact is and what a theory is, that any position you take on this issue is largely semantic.

---

Oh contraire again. There is no conflicing view about these words in the scientific community, and this is obviously the one he is referring to.

quote:

---

Scripture reveals the exact height of Noah’s flood, Fifteen cubits (only 22 feet) upward did the waters prevail (Gen 7:20), which is in exact accordance with Orthodox Jewish interpretation and archaeology.

​

In what way is this in accordance with archaeology? I’m confident that no archaeologist has found evidence that can be conclusively linked to Noah’s flood.

---

I've actually argued this one before. In 2,900 BC, a major river flood destroyed the southern city states of Sumeria. The two rivers were the Tigris and Euphrates. Twenty two feet would be appropriate for a river flood. This is in accordance to archaeology, so I bet this is what he's getting at.

quote:

---

Creation science’s dirty little secret: The one and only proof of a global flood, all layered sedimentary rocks, finds its origins from the dream of a teenager who claimed it was a vision from God.

​

I actually have two things to say about this one: (1) There isn’t even one proof of a global flood, and, even if there were, it certainly wouldn’t be all layered sedimentary rocks; (2) This doesn't sound like a reliable anecdote, anyway.

---

I'm sure this comment relates to flood geology claimed by all young earth creationists. It does show who his target audience is.best,

quote:

---

(Rahvin)Did youknow that you shouldn't just trust everything you find on some website?

---

I never do, but it certainly looks like you do not know what you are talking about. Read my above comments and I'll get to yours when I have time. I will make one quick comment, Darwin never used the word "evolution" in his first four editions and only in his last edition did he use the word "evolved". He did this on purpose because people at the time believed evolution was determinant and he hated that. Did you not know this?best,Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.

quote:

---

(Rahvin)-The anti-evolution creationist explanation of microevolution is genetically impossible.

​

No, it's not. Microevolution (meaning genetic variation within a single species) can and does happen, and is in fact the only way that a species can diversify and subdivide into new species. The only impossibility is that Microevolution could ever be restrained from becoming Macroevolution given sufficient generations and selective pressures (and even that's not impossible - but no such restricting mechanism has ever been found, and Macroevolution has been directly observed to result from small Microevolution changes within a population, so it's just factually incorrect).

---

Rahvin,You certainly do not get it. Hawley is pointing out the creationists' definition of microevolution. The reason they do this is because they must somehow explain why one ark can fit so many species in it. They claim "general kinds" were in the ark, such as one dog-kind, and then microevolution occurred after that. This is what is genetically impossible. You are pointing out mistakes when you haven't even seen his evidence to these claims. Luckily, I've seen some of this before.best,

That's exactly what he is saying. Darwin never used the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" because that was coined by Herbert Spencer.The point he is trying to make is many creationists think Darwin invented evolution and he never even used the full word. Why do you not get it?best,

The fact that I got you "Rahvin mad", I could care less. Your anger comes from ego, because your assumption is you understand this stuff better. None of these comments are deceptive in the least.Let's see how smart you are. What does the author mean by the creationists' global flood/sedimentary rocks argument coming from a teenager's vision? ...or will you merely "f" bomb again?best,

I just got my copy of his book. It's not like I thought. It's main theme is Thomas Aquinas' general revelation and special revelation discussion and he calls it dual revelation.Here's the dirty little secret. Almost all young earth creationists embrace Henry Morris's flood geology where the sedimentary rocks are remnant global flood deposits. Morris actually borrowed it from early 20th century creationist George Mcready Price, yet did not acknowledge that in his 1961 book. He finally acknowledged it in the 1980s. In his 1961 book, he deceptively claims he got this info from ancient writers, such as Augustine. What people do not know is Price was a Seventh Day Adventice and Price came up with this brand of flood geology from his spiritual role model Seventh Day Adventice co-founder Ellen White. In her teenage years, she had a vision that God took her back in time to the flood to watch and she then exclaimed God told her fossils and the rocks were proof of this.The significance of this is that almost ALL young earth creationists pin their entire "science" upon this particular flood geology. I'm sure none of them know it came from a teenage seventh day adventist.best,Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.