Thoughts on Deistic Evolution

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Burrawang

as world renowned Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle once famously said

What is it with YEC leading up to some favorable quote that they have to layer on the hagiographic adulation. We know who Fred Hoyle is.

@Burrawang

Please take a long hard look at the Replica Ark above and consider the enormous difficulty of building it from scratch without chainsaws, timber jinkers (log trucks), lumber yards, powered cranes, power tools such as drills, thicknessers, planers, circular saws, routers, or other powered machinery

So difficult as to be not possible, and further, at that scale and of that construction, would sink quicker the the Vasa upon meeting the sea.

@Burrawang

When a person indoctrinates themselves with an evolution deep time worldview, then everything they see and do, they interpret in a manner that is consistent with their worldview.

Scientists interpret evidence from observation. YEC has no observational backing, and rapid plate tectonics and spontaneous accelerated decay have never been observed, so there is no science involved at all.

@Burrawang

when I see all those same strata, from top to bottom without any evidence of soil horizons or bioturbation

Get your facts straight. No, I will not waste my time educating you.

@Burrawang

most mutations are near neutral, and are not visible to Natural Selection at the level of reproductive fitness, so they remain in the genome and accumulate, passed on to successive generations with no mechanism available to remove them, and this happens at the entire population level, not just in individuals.

Not only is Sanford wrong, but he is not even self consistent. See my forum post on

Of Mice and Men and John Sanford’s Genetic Entropy

@Burrawang

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of scientists were indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm right from the outset of their education. I wonder how many have performed a critical analysis of evolution; not many I’m sure. My experience tells me that most believe evolution because a scientist they respect believes it and so on for that scientist; it’s a self propagating paradigm that does not tolerate being questioned.

Not only is that offensive, but very wrong. Scientists can and do think for themselves. You have had gracious responses from qualified and working scientists on this forum who have given much thought to origins and possess far deeper understanding than yourself. There are 1500 scientists named Steve or a variant thereof, who performed enough of a critical analysis of evolution, to sign the following statement

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.