Thanks. The Nat Geo clip that is highlighted in Biologos front page about whale evolution…I watched only about 10 minutes and in 10 little minutes found it to be incredibly and painfully unscientific. Notice how these scientist described an entire whale evolutionary tree based on fossilized skull…the language that was used to describe the wolf sized animal was incredibly unscientific. Listen to it sometime. He says, “I think it would have had four limbs” “It probably had short fur” And yet the documentary goes on to describe how this animal, which according to the first minutes only had a fossilized skull, was indeed a pre-whale!
If historical science is truly a seeker of truth, then why would this language be such? Why didn’t the paleontologist recommend options for the placement of such a skull? Could it have been a small whale skull that found its way onto land that was once under water? Or could it be a whale like creature that was caught by a carnivore and whose skull was placed where it was found? And why not discuss the reason for the difficulty of fossilization in the first place…how rapid burial via things like flood waters is best for encouraging such fossilization.
For Nat Geo, since the idea of fully functioning animal kinds created by God is not in the realm of possibility in their naturalistic minds, it will fudge evidence to fit the worldview they already subscribe to. They are NOT seekers of truth. They have already subscribed to the only TRUTH they know and that is naturalism. And some want me, a Christian who subscribes to a view that God created kinds with the ability to adapt, swallow and accept these views hook line and sinker??
The other arguments that are on the biologos front page of their website for evolution are also troubling. I live in an 1,950 sq foot house that is framed with 2x4 construction and sided with cedar and I live in a very average community. There are 10,000 sq foot mansions in a neighboring community literally right next door to our community that are also stick framed with brick veneer. Do these two sick framed houses with different sizes and different veneers mean that they must therefore reside in the same community? From this, similarities on bone structure between various species does not logically conclude that they evolved from the same community either. Same with the conclusions about genetics…assumption after assumption to bolster more credit to man and his ability to interpret history and less to God who knows it.