I'm concerned that some may have misread or misunderstood some of what I said as the Rev. Pam Easterday did. Hence, I would like to clarify a few things as well as add to the discussion. I appreciate very much the opportunity.
She made it sound like I said there are not simple organisms. That's obviously false. There are organisms today that are very complex and others today that are seemingly not as complex. This does nothing for the theory of evolution. The examples given by the reverend are merely speculative if one does the searching she encouraged.
The age of the fossils she gave is an age alleged by the theory, not the facts, and these formations are controversial even among evolutionists as to whether they came from a biological source. In fact, in her letter, she nearly makes my point: life at its simplest forms at its oldest ages is still highly organized and complex - vastly more complex than anything man has ever imagined creating.
A brief search on stromatolites will reveal the words "presumed" and "believed" and "assumed" countless times in their descriptions. This is not hard science but a faith-based religion. It should also be noted I did not indicate there were no fossils below the Cambrian rocks, but very few. This is true and can be researched quite easily.
And this is the biggest point I would like to make: research it. Look at both sides and you'll see the argument for creation is quite strong. I'll throw in something to research: bioinformatics. Research this topic to find yet another major problem for the theory of evolution.
I read the Bible and, because I can trust God and take him at his word, I believe he tells me the truth. Because I find, in years of research, no reason to doubt his word, the case for trusting God is very solid.
She claims there is disagreement on how the world works! Yes, that much is correct and I'm glad we can agree on that. There is disagreement in any field. And to suggest we cannot find reliable answers to some of the questions we have goes without saying. We're talking about events that happened in the past that no one, save God himself, witnessed. The problems she outlines for creationists are the same, and often times even larger, for the evolutionist.
The fact is, the Bible is the foundation for my worldview. I would challenge a theistic evolutionist to use God's word to defend their position. Not some metaphorical passage about time, but something that leads them to conclude what they believe. God spoke clearly in Genesis as well as the rest of his word.
Her final statements concerning "most denominations" are purely ad populum. This means it must be right, because most people think it is. That's absurd on a great scale. The first point in my article was simple: This is not a science-vs.-religion debate. Science not only confirms what I believe, the major branches of science were created by men and women who believed very similarly to me.
Children are being taught a very one-sided view on origins and are not being told the debate is purely over interpretation. It has nothing to do with science or the facts. It has everything to do with authority and where we put our trust.
Parents, please research this topic and know some fundamentals so you can answer your kids when they ask. It all boils down to interpretation, period. If we want our children to not act like apes, perhaps we should stop telling them that's what they are.