Friday, June 17, 2011

More on Bruce Waltke's Conclusion

(See David Carvers comment on the previous posting)

Anyone who asserts, as Bruce Waltke does, that the overwhelming evidence from science supports evolution theory does not know what scientific evidence is. True, at the present time, the overwhelming concensus from the academic world parrots that opinion. If concensus is taken as evidence, Waltke is right for the time being. But if evidences from science only are the criteria, he is dead wrong.

Evolutionists perform all kinds of good science in areas peripheral to the central iissue, like genetics, cell function, plant and animal behavior, and similarities in morphology. But at its core, evolution theory is simply guesswork, minus persuasive scientific data. Many studies from good science surround evolution theory and this is used as a persuasive front, leading unwary followers to assume that the core assumptions must be scientifically established as well. They are not, not by any means.

If data exists supporting evolution using rigid, scientific protocol, where is it? I have seen nothng that is not far more sensibly explained by creation. Morphological similarites, whether on the molecular level or the macro level, only prove, as creationists often affirm, that they have a common Designer.

A major weakness in creationist arguments comes from a superficial reading of Genesis with the conclusion that God created planet earth and the stellar heavens less than ten thousand years ago. It is no wonder that many scientists turn off at that point and it enables them to take the absolutely underwhelming evidence for evolution and make it seem credible. Bruce Waltke's tragedy should alert us all to the power of "strong delusion" at this terminus of history.

- Gorman Gray