Tag: creationism vs evolutionism

Fossil layers seem to be consistent with some independent phylogenetic analyses, radiometric dating methods seem to be consistent with inferences based on the DNA "molecular clock," continental drift over millions of years seems to be consistent with the distribution of species and fossils on Earth... and the examples go on. If the evolution of life is not a real phenomenon, how can we have this apparent consensus between several independent strands of scientific research?

Atheist evolutionists accuse Christians of offering explanations that blame everything on God when they have no other answer. In other words, God has become a pretext for ignorance. Without denying the fact that sometimes this is true, reality also has other facets.

The spontaneous generation of life on Earth is as likely as a whirlwind putting a Boeing 747 together using scattered spare parts in a junkyard.

Humans are moral beings, while animals possess a rudimentary form of morality. Both the most conservative theologians and evolutionary biologists agree with these statements. Still, since the former speak of God and the latter of nature, the eternal dispute between the two parties is based on the authorship of the sense of ethics, the germination bed for the birth of morality. So, if morality is inherent in human nature, who put it there?

An article in the New Yorker[1] explains why we tend to not change our convictions, not even when faced with contrary evidence.