A creationist who has in depth study of the many line of evidence that relate to the theory of evolution (therefore not ignorant), and also is considered an intelligent person who is very well educated (PhD style, therefore not 'stupid') and also shows absolutely no characteristics of mental illness (therefore not insane). And finally, he has renounced some high paying jobs in order to become an active proponent of creationism (therefore most probably not wicked)
In what category does this person fall into ? Could it be that he genuinely thinks the evidence simply does not support the theory of evolution ?
When one accepts creationism, one is likely to accept that scripture or divine revelation is the highest form of knowledge. There goes the Ph.D., down the drain. The rest is apologetics, not science.
And I don't want to derail the topic, but of course random mutations+inheritable traits+Natural Selection does not automatically, enable the possibility that microbes can become elephants. Unless your telling me you can't possibly consider a universe where all three components can be found and yet evolution wouldn't be sustainable ?
What we are telling you is that the empirical evidence, from many fields of study, strongly suggests that microbes
did become elephants and all the other extant critters.
But you are right, those forces do not automatically lead from microbes to elephants. If the dice were rolled again, the odds are that we would have different critters instead of elephants etc. There is a lot of chance in mutations, inheritance, natural selection, genetic drift, founders effect, etc. Maybe next time Neanderthal would have come out on top!
But we have no empirical evidence that some supernatural being has been pulling the strings.
You think the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is unlikely, examine the real evidence supporting supernatural beings. Leave belief out of it, and really examine the evidence. (You can get better "trust me's" from used car salesmen.)
Edited by Coyote, : Grammar
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
