Thank you for your kindness in this reply. I should clarify that I do not think that there is enough valid scientific evidence to even suggest that macro evolution is true…yes to adaptation but no to macro evolution from single celled organisms… The reason I made this statement is to suggest not that God tends to deceive but to suggest that God is God and our perceptions about subjects and thus arguments and divisions over the validity of macro evolution vs God created “kinds” are foolish because “science” does not prove either. There are fragments in the fossil record that make some suggestions here and there but no definitive proof that the kinds of plants and animals we see today are inevitably from a single celled amoeba vs individual fully functioning kinds that God created directly which does of course fall better in line with Genesis. And there is division and strife in the church over this…interesting too, this division I believe is masterful by our enemy…think about this for a second: the old earth theistic evolution camps say that if we don’t acknowledge the “truth” embedded in the rocks as decided by geologists like those dang young earthers do, then the Bible cannot be trusted. Likewise, the young earthers declare that if those theistic evolutionists don’t believe the “correct” interpretation of Genesis 1, then the Bible cannot be trusted either. We are arguing for not trusting the Bible and subconsciously we are leading ourselves to not trust it! I would suggest today that neither of the options in those states are good because they are both declaring towards both camps that the Bible is not true. I stand in a different place. God is true and He is beyond our rationale. For this, I will only simply stand more closely upon His revelation that He created the plants and animals according to their kinds which can adapt, He created Adam and Eve who sinned…And I will stand more distant from all of the far reaching interpretations we want to conclude in our observations in the rocks which want to declare that there is definitive proof that macro evolution is factual when this is pushing it indeed. When it comes to the age of the earth, I will lean towards it being younger (maybe not 6000 years old but 100k) and lean away from it being billions of years old that is all so necessary for macro evolution to be true even though it really has no legit scientific proof that it is. I will leave the issue with that simplicity because when I choose to try to give details, it leads to division. Instead I look to our God who is beyond understanding to our finite minds. And the reason human kind wants to expand on the details in many cases is because they want to make much of self and their intelligence to have come up with such a plan that deserves a book deal or another para church organization or even notoriety and then less of God who confounds the “wise” and declares them foolish relative to His omniscience. This thinking of honing in on particular details is how denominations started which are necessarily devisive…think about that for a moment. Instead I will remain humbly submissive to the fact that I was not there when God laid the foundations of the earth that causes me to be more trusting of the main precepts of His revelation when it comes to our beginnings yet gives me pause to define in detail including timeframes etc on how He actually accomplished creation. If we Christians would agree to, in our finiteness leave it this way and stop trying to develop detailed analysis then focus on sharing the gospel with loving unity that adores and reverences God who is outside of our full comprehension…whereby we stand on the main principles of God’s Word to be absolutely true in their original intent, I believe we will find His power prevailing through the humility found in this sweet place of unity in His Spirit and lives transformed by the gospel as we share it with conviction and without blushing! I will say in closing that this is the way that I look at early Genesis and how we were created because there seems to be flexibility in interpretation. However in most other areas of the Scriptures where the text is cut and dry, I believe it exactly as stated. I can tell you story after story of great power by the Spirit of God when I, by faith have trusted in the God of the universe who declares His character and ideals through the plain reading of His Word! Some would say that for the seeker, we need to water the text and socialize them into the fold…there is a place for gentleness and kindness towards our communications, but there is power by the Spirit of God when we share the gospel with a countenance of confidence in God described in our Bibles! Spirit of the Living God, revive us towards Yourself!
My mother in Law was diagnosed with cancer a few years back. She sought the best doctor in the city for this type of cancer -I believe her name was Dr. Marsha Ballard. Anyway, the testing that they did to my Mother in law suggested a number (which the type or name of the scale I am ignorant) which was off the charts positive that she had cancer of her female organs and had it very badly. So she was to go in for surgery to remove these “known” to have cancer. We prayed. My mother in law and wife had a belief out from this season of prayer that she was healed of her cancer that concluded with an episode where, in the waiting area before the surgery my Mother in law was proclaiming that she was healed to Dr. Ballard. I will never forget Dr. Ballard. She snubbed by mom and told her that the tests reveal that she does have cancer end of story…and that they were going in to remove it and see if any more important organs were affected. Dr. Ballard walked out with a swagger. Mom, remained steadfast that she had been healed. Two hours later, I will also never forget watching the woman who walked out with such swagger walk back into the waiting area this time with her tail between her legs telling all of us who were waiting that she did the hysterectomy by found no cancer at all. I was dumbfounded because I for one trusted the science more than I trusted God who confounds the wise sometimes.
Then there was the time that as a young lad with a small house that depended on rain water for filling a cistern used for water supply during a drought summer…I was just out of college In this new house and house poor…and was always buying water from Whalen water works to come and fill the cistern the weather patterns failed to fill for me. I prayed for rain… Then I turned on the local meteorologist for a weather report. He said any chance of a stray shower had been called off for the day for the drought to continue from which I wrote a check to Whalen to tape on the back window of the house to pay him to fill the cistern while I was away at work. (I still have that check) Then, I kid you not, I heard what sounded like a car crash. Then heard it again louder…then again soon to realize that it was thunder. The doubter I was, I then thought that this storm that seemed miles away will probably miss us anyway…would you know that zero chance of rain just predicted about 30 minutes before turned into the opposite -a rain shower so strong and forceful that in 5 minutes as it came and went then back to blue skies my cistern was so full that the water was gushing over the top of the funnel where the downspouts connect? And while that storm was roaring, there was a clap of lighting that produced such a loud instantaneous thunder that I could feel vibrations in my chest as if the Almighty was saying Greg, why did you not trust me and base your rationale on the weatherman instead?
So the age of the earth and evolution…I have mentioned in previous statements that I will remain open to the possibility that the earth might be 100k years old etc, but will not succumb to the idea that it is millions or billions required all so necessary to produce macro evolution that evolve a nothing into a single cell into what we see today. These suggestions by “scientists” today are pushing the envelope in order to undergird their naturalistic worldview and too many Christians think that they need to fall in line or else. Instead, there is nothing insulting to science to suggest that God created plants and animals according to their kinds with ability within themselves to adapt. This falls better in line with revelation. This combined with a healthy reverence to God who is so transcendent and beyond human rationale makes for acceptance of the validity of His Word from top to bottom. And when we push against the rationalistic, naturalistic approaches posed by the world, and have faith in the God of The Bible, He is honored and sometimes He shows up in amazing ways! God help us! .
Then the time
Admittedly we seem to disagree as to the role of humans in God Creation and God’s Plan. My Bible says that God created men and women in God’s own Image. It says God trusted humans to rule with God as viceroy over God’s Works. Psalm 8 says that God created humans a little lower than divine beings. Job demanded that God respond to his complaints and guess what, God did, rather then punish his impertinence.
Islam rejects modern science for theological reasons. You want to limit modern science for theological reasons. I think the traditional understanding of humans as created by God with the ability to understand Gods creation is right.
I accept people who reject evolution as Christians. I would hope that those people would accept me as a Christian also… Salvation is not based on theology or science, but on faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ. This is where we need to put the emphasis, instead of insisting that bad theology id good theology, because it is your theology.
I desire to limit the tendency for “Christian” to blindly follow the precepts guided by naturalistic scientists who use science as a cover up for vast, bold and incomprehensible interpretations about how we came to be millions or billions of years ago. Check out C.S. Lewis’s book called the Screwtape letters. It is a book that is a fictional account of the way satan and his minions strategize how to distract people from the beauty and power of our great God. I can hear a new chapter in the book about science…satan says to one of his workers of evil, “convince the people that science is all together bad so that they don’t use the resources of modern medicine for the benefit of the health of individuals.” THEN he says to his minions,"And for the rest who won’t decline the benefits of science on a practical level, convince them that scientific terms are the main source of all explanation and understanding (they call this naturalism) thus giving them propensity to maybe give a little lip service about the enemy to soothe their meist mindset, but in their heart of hearts, ignore the enemy who made them by which they will not just die physically, but will find permanent death and separation from the enemy and presence with us.
Aha! So according to your theology, Satan created nature.
Ironically, C.S. Lewis himself was a theistic evolutionist: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/surprised-by-jack-part-4-mere-evolution.
(See also parts 1, 2, and 3 for background. A Google search for “Lewis evolution BioLogos” will yield still more links from blog posts about this over the years.)
Not that this proves anything, of course.
Greg, like you I think it very sad when Christians blindly follow ‘false prophets’ in search of the Truth. You fear that “naturalistic scientists” are acting as false prophets, using radiometric dating as an “incomprehensible” “cover up” to justify the immense time that evolution must have needed to produce humankind from the first living cell. Greg, you need not be a trained scientist to comprehend radiometric dating, IF you have the mind to try. It must be an OPEN mind, however. If you undertake the task, you must allow for the fact that the scientists who developed these methods were seeking the Truth, just as you are. If, instead, you accept as a “given” that science is attempting to “cover up” something, then you are blinding yourself at the start.
As I stated in an earlier post (which you seem not to have read), I am lucky in that I had a chance to learn C-14 dating from Libby, its discoverer. And I know first hand that he was not trying to cover up anything–only to learn and attempt to understand, as much as possible, how God operates in our Universe. There is some truth to the old maxim: “None is so blind as those who will not to see.”
Best wishes,
Al Leo
What evidence have you evaluated, grog?
Hi Al: Ok. for the sake of a kind hearted, rational discussion on this matter…dating methods that point to a billion plus year existence of the earth must necessarily have to depend upon assumptions about conditions 1000 years ago let alone millions of years…I took a history class in college where the professor accurately declared that written history is NEVER the facts, but an interpretation of evidence. We can read two historical accounts of 250 year old America that are written by reasonable historians which are very different and sometimes opposite in respects…yet I am going to agree to be accepting of, for example, NOVA where they have folks describing ages in language that is arrogantly confident that they are correct?
For this, I believe that naturalistic science that by definition cannot tolerate the thought of the miraculous to be included in any scientific equation by definition has to incorporate into the discussion of molecules to complexity evolution vast amount of time of the earth’s existence for the evolution to take place as they see it.
So history telling can be very flaky and lead to biases in conclusion…
So what can we know for sure relative to what our minds are capable of today?
Something such as matter and energy from nothing is impossible except from a an event outside of our frail understanding of things…called the supernatural.
The science of statistics would suggest with authority that the form of, say a DNA chain found in a single cell with all of its complexity to build itself by chance from nothing cannot be assigned the term “impossible” because the science is incapable of such a declaration by rather would suggest that the event is so inconceivably improbable that to attempt to assign possibility to such is futile and foolish. So where the scientist says we must not accept the supernatural into scientific thought, at the same time they accept a super stupid assumption of developing models that refuse to include God who could not only have intervened in the beginning but in the middle, end of existence. Since this is the only rational condition, the models developed for say old earth so necessary for molecules to man evolution most likely are more flawed as the American history writer of history even within a couple of hundred years could be!
The facts I know from Scriptures which I have examined for 30 plus years say two things about people which I have concluded to be very true: One is that there is a tendency for human kind to repress the idea of God even though they know in the heart of their hearts that He exists based on what they see in creation. The second is that mankind has a longing for transcendence and belonging…for meaning beyond just existing. When I watched cubbie fans celebrating last night with veins popping out of their necks, I see people longing for transcending beyond just existing…they want to believe in something and indeed worship something and if this void is not filled by the only One worthy, they there may be a path of futile attempts to fill it with other things like sports…Hey-I was cheering heartily when Cleveland hit a homerun in the 8th inning! I was screaming with excitement, ask my son…But then had to have a gut check. Anyway, unfortunately at times, this is what I see with many scientists in in the secular arena…the universe is fascinating and awe-consuming and if there is a push back from acceptance of the existence of God who made this, the search for significance can lead to self actualized transcendence that formulate an historical account based on dishonest conclusions in the lab. I am sorry if you think I am an idiot for this suggestion, but this is really what I must conclude.
For me, from the most rational standpoint I can stand upon, the idea of evolution from simplicity to complexity without supernatural involvement in every step of the way is absolutely and totally ludicrous. For example an eye developing through naturalistic processes only from nothing to a little bit of something to more complexity to a fully functioning eye in beyond reason. Maybe even more stupid is a reptile developing a wing stub incapable of flapping for flying that is necessarily damaging for survival while still flightless or for that matter the reptile developing bones that are more and more hollow and frail while still flightless and suseptable to damaging attack by a ground predatory makes no sense.
Naturalistic evolutionists are suggesting that science necessarily omits God by definition of “science” but then proceeds with idiocy pushing against the science of statistics which would suggest that only God can make sense of any of it.
Then the historical tale gets written and tests are taken that fit the historical tale and the Christian feels responsible to fit into this picture?
I do not believe that evolution makes any sense in every sense of the idea logically. I do believe that the much more sensible thought on how we got here is that God created the kinds with the ability to modify to conform and survive their surroundings within the boundaries of possibility of how they were created. Whether this occurred over 100,000 years or more, I will leave alone because I was not there. God created the kinds, He created us in His image and Adam and Eve who were also created by God turn their back on Him. It only makes sense that such a God who is that outstanding could not even tolerate that we attempt to perform our way back to Him with our little ploys and gimmicks and for this, the only possibility for God to be reconciled with humankind was for Him to do something for us and that is where the beauty of the Cross of Christ is so fitting!
For all of the above, this is why I will choose to humbly submit to the prophets and apostles more than I will submit myself to modern day historians who are leaping at explanations about what they think occurred x number of millions of years ago etc. God stands outside of time…time itself is created by God. He exists in the past present and future and our quests in quantum physics is on the beginning trails in this thinking that should cause human kind great humility and caution about how we interpret the existence of the world!
So this is my honest appeal to all who listen to this. I realize that many in earshot are Christians and that is great. So Christian, consider trusting God and what He is revealing about Himself in His Word more and be more of an agnostic towards the ideas and the testings of man-especially from those who push back God which necessarily causes a pursuit of transcendence and worship in other things other than He!
Read Lewis’s “Evolutionary Poem” sometime. I see Lewis evolving more to trust revelation and becoming more of an agnostic towards historical interpretation as he grew from an atheist to theist and believer in God who created. He was honest too to report that he is more of a philosopher than a scientist, but this does not give credence to the suggestion that Lewis was a sold out theistic evolutionist either. Sorry.
No…sorry…if you read the Screwtape Letters is a fictional account t is about how Satan and demons might scheme ways to deceive people. This rendition is a suggestion of an added chapter that displays the discourse between satan and his demons to deceive in the area of science…where I suggest to you that on one hand, God gave us science for good which satan would hope against, yet it can become ultimate and become very bad the same as it pushes out God and His revelation of Himself which satan would like. If you read the book, you will understand my statement better.
My most sincerest condolences. 
(She says, after a lifetime of heartbreak as a Cubs fan.) 
Hi Greg,
I have tried, but I can’t figure out the logic in this sentence. Would you kindly rephrase it for me?
You can visit a courtroom any day of the week to see the difference between history and science.
Witnesses go before the court to tell their stories. On cross-examination, the opposing attorney reveals their biases, their failing memories, their motivations to spin their testimony, etc.
Then the forensic scientist presents DNA evidence. On cross-examination, the opposing attorney doesn’t bother to address biases, failing memories, motivations, etc. Why? They are completely irrelevant. On the other hand, the opposing attorney might address questions of scientific method and analysis: were the samples handled properly? Are the scientists’ numerical assumptions validated by peer-reviewed studies?
Do you see why it is inappropriate to apply your professor’s perfectly valid critique of history to a different field, science, which has very different methods? If not, perhaps you could explain why you think a forensic scientist’s courtroom testimony about human history (as demonstrated by DNA evidence) should be treated differently than a geologist’s or biologist’s testimony about natural history (as demonstrated by radiological evidence or DNA evidence).
Blessings,
Chris Falter
What would you say to the idea of evolution from simplicity to complexity in which every step is controlled by God’s providence?
I have thought about that but for the example of the reptile to bird…Does God thereby give the reptile a wing stub that leads to the development into the bird with a bigger and bigger wing stub with more and more hollow bones all the while that reptile has less of a chance of survival in the wild with such as it remained an earth bound creature with a useless wing stub until one day, the final bird product. It circumvents the entirety of evolutionary logic, does it not? Or perhaps God transitioned the reptile directly into a bird. Hmm. This sounds a bit closer to Genesis where God created kinds. I am sorry to differ from many who subscribe to the SEEMING ideology of biologos which seems to me a strategy of appeal to those of a naturalistic evolutionist mindset as a baby step into belief in God and His gospel. Theistic evolution seems to be more of a tag line to appeal to folks than it does a logical albeit Biblical worldview. To me, the gospel is miraculous and was an act of God by His Son towards me while I was still in sin. Likewise, we were given grace when God stepped into the scene that He indeed created of history where He created man and woman and created animals in their kinds! I have seen a lot of rocks thrown at the anti evolutionist creationists from this website and I would declare to you that THEY seem to have it more together logically and Biblically than theistic evolutionists do. Do some of the young earth crowd get a bit smug with their assertions? Absolutely and I believe this has to due with a focus on keeping a job in a young earth parachurch organization instead of being gentle and kinds in relaying to a lost world basic principles and without giving so much detail as if they were the ones who were at God’s side when He created. Anyway, so sorry, just being honest. Meanwhile, the rocks being thrown by both camps are suggesting that the others’ stance suggest that the Bible is in error. I could tell you really great stories about my choosing to stand by faith in God who describes Himself pretty plainly in principle found in His Word. For this, by His grace, I will not succumb to trying to waft folks into the kingdom with appeal to those who want to push against God at every turn in the scientific fields, but rather declare with respect that our God is real and stands alone and indeed gave us the ability to study His creation! He created us and the animals in their kinds and did so with decisiveness and with power with a snap of his fingers. He stands alone and is beyond human reason in many ways, yet has given us reasonable proof of the fame of His being and existence in the beauty of colors and complexities of His Creation!
Hi: For naturalistic science to allow for godless evolution from one cell to the complexity we see today, it must require vast amounts of time. Billions of years. Since the naturalist needs this, the tendency for writing the history of the world will inevitably be tainted in telling that story that necessitate vast amount of time. I am sorry, but when I hear a “scientist” on Nat Geo walking through a South American jungle declaring with authority that such and such evolved x number of millions of years ago… or that the plant that has the appearance of the female wasp which is thereby dependent upon the male wasp in the region to be fooled by the plant, land on it for mating purposes, thus pollenating the plant is a symbiotic relationship that the process of evolution pave the pathway for through evolutionary principles 1 through 5 …are all NOT science. They are history books that are being written with so many assumptions that are likely far from fact. The scientist should never recite such guesses that should not even be considered hypotheses let alone theories or laws with such arrogant gusto. That is not science. Do you understand what I suggest here?
Hi Greg,
Here’s what I think I hear you saying: when you hear a scientist talk about something that happened before our lifetimes, you think s/he is just making it up in order to satisfy his or her prejudices. Please correct me if I misunderstand.
I hope you will not mind talking about some specific points regarding the Bible and science.
Here’s something that John Calvin because he believed the Bible rather than scientists:
“[The Christian is not to compromise so as to obscure the distinction between good and evil, and is to avoid the errors of] those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and pervert the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil possesses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence.”
So Calvin claimed not only that the sun revolved around the earth, but that those who claimed otherwise were possessed of the devil, and argued from pure malice against God’s revelation. He made this claim because of his trust in God’s Word, as he understood it. Here is what Calvin said Psalm 93:1 clearly and irrefutably teaches -
“The heavens revolve daily, and immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion–nod disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air if not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?”
According to Calvin, Psalm 104:5 also shows clearly and convincingly that the earth does not revolve around the sun:
“Here the prophet celebrates the glory of God, as manifested in the stability of the earth. Since it is suspended in the midst of the air, and is supported only by pillars of water, how does it keep its place so stedfastly that it cannot be moved? This I indeed grant may be explained on natural principles; for the earth, as it occupies the lowest place, being the center of the world, naturally settles down there.”
Like you, Greg, Calvin thought that if there was a contradiction between science and Scripture, that science should be rejected and Scripture should be upheld as representing the true nature of reality. So do you agree with Calvin that the sun revolves around the earth? Or do you think it is possible for even a godly scholar to misinterpret a passage of Scripture, and thus we should be careful about confusing our interpretation of Scripture with what it actually means?
Blessings,
Chris Falter
Hi Greg: Too bad we can’t sit down together (over a glass of wine?) and have this conversation. Facial expressions and body language sometimes conveys one’s position even better than words–or at least adds to them. I will try to follow up on a few quotes from your last post to see why our positions appear so far apart.
From my reading of both anthropology and scripture I conclude that the most distinguishing characteristic of humankind is our desire to know as much as possible about how we got here–how we were created. If you conclude that there is any tendency for humans to repress the idea of God, you must have gotten it from Scripture. To honestly practice ‘hard science’, we are NOT expected to insist that God has had no part in making the Universe as it is. When we study the intricate details of some tiny ‘biological motor’, such as the one that propels the human sperm, it is tempting to conclude that it could NOT have arisen from some more simple form, but MUST have been specially designed with propulsion in mind, just as a human designer would do. If we remain satisfied with this “directly designed” explanation, we cheat ourselves of finding out a more subtle and the more miraculous way God actually accomplished this feat. If you have carefully followed the discussions on this Forum between proponents of E.C. and I.D. and Y.E.C. you will have noted that some bright intellects have been satisfied that each of these positions has merits. So when you “bad mouth” folks who have reached conclusions you do not agree with, you really are only diminishing the validity of your own arguments. For example:
Greg,
You correct that anything can be used for evil, including theology. That is why we need good theology and good science. My concern was that you said we could not understand the history of our planet and life on our planet. That is just not true, so we need to work together to understand God, our planet, and ourselves as God intended.
The problem is not science. the problem is not the evolution. the problem is sin and all this hullaballoo keeps us from even working together. God reveals Godself through the universe God made through God’s Word, Jesus Christ, the Logos.
I do not agree with Calvin in this point. As a believer I personally believe it is important to decipher when an author is making a general statement about godly living or a principle about God using their understanding of how the universe works (even if incorrect) to enunciate that unrelated principle verses a portion of scripture that is more obviously pointing to a specific detail of how creation was accomplished like in Gen. Look at the context of the passage in Ps 103…He makes the clouds his chariot?? God needs a cloud to ride around? Or He wraps himself in light?? The principle that the author here is shooting for is not the science of creation but the majesty of God where he uses his frail and indeed false understanding of the science of existence to define how majestic He is. The fact that David or whoever authored this passage does not understand how the universe works does not bother me one single bit.
But what is the principle that naturalistic evolutionists are truly pushing for? They are doing their best to avoid miracles of God at all cost because that is what science is, yet as stated in other posts abandon the science of statistics that say that it is so absolutely improbable and so practically impossible for chance evolution to occur from molecules to man that we should not even consider it. Yet in the hardness of their hearts speak so confidently about their bold claims speaking history going back billions of years with little reserve that they might be wrong, that the Christian comes along who at one point believed that God made man and made animals according to their kinds and gets intimidated to go along with the ride. That is called fearing man. The love of God should numb our fear of man! Anyway, then the Christian comes up with even the more strange idea that God is a God who ordains the steps of evolution from molecules to man so as to help those who are so confused about how they have been deceived to believe that evolution from molecules to man is true yet conflicts with the idea of God. In deep respect, here me out on this:
This is the way I described it to another person-if God is in the midst of the steps necessary for the evolution of say a reptile and a bird, then He gives the reptile a wing stump which is awkward to have. In fact, when this reptile attempts to survive in the wild with these stumps, it becomes more difficult. Then He gives the reptile a bigger wing stump which makes it impossible for the reptile to survive in the wild. But lets go along with it…God gives the wing stump some feather like appendages attached to the stump and the body as well but not enough to fly yet…and don’t forget the hollow fragile bones…well, could you imagine the difficulty for a reptile to survive in an environment most likely cruel to such a feathered animal that could not fly? He would be lunch for another hungry reptile in a matter of minutes. All due respect again, it seems absolutely foolish contrasted to God taking a reptile and just making it a bird that can instantaneously fly…which could suggest that there is more logic to the idea that God made animals in their kinds in the first place which have the ability to adjust to their environment. I have heard that somewhere before.
The irony of all of this is that naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution that borrows healthy amounts from the naturalist seem the most silly when we use the very principles of evolution called adaptation to consider the validity and logic of the idea eg, a reptile with feathered wing stumps that cannot fly will more likely be eaten than a reptile with no wing stumps at all and thick callous skin coverings. circularly illogical to the highest degree. The only reason we go there is because there is a false belief that science is only as good as the idea that the miraculous is completely disassociated which is circularly illogical because this abandons the science of statistics that says that when something is completely and totally improbable such as chance evolution of dna for example, then we just need to accept that it is impossible and go onto a different idea… which I kindly believe is that God created the plants and animals in their kinds with the ability to adapt to their environment in order to be able to survive and thus bring glory to their Creator and Designer!