A couple weeks ago, I had the privilege of speaking at the “I Am Not Ashamed” conference in Charleston, West Virginia (see No Atheist Protest But Time Well Spent With One Atheist). Shortly after the conference an editorial appeared in The Charleston Gazette entitled, “Science: Honest Evidence.” I responded with a letter that was published last Sunday entitled, “Evolution editorial full of false claims.” I encourage you to read both the editorial and my response.
As usual, several people decided to respond to my letter with their own dissenting opinions. What really struck me as I read their responses was how deceived people are when it comes to the definition of evolution and the type of science that evolution represents. But first, let’s deal with a post by “ioanthe” who responded to my statement, “In Genesis, God gives us an eyewitness account (His own!) of creation, so we can understand how everything we observe in the present came to be.”
“ioanthe” states the following:
Which version? Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other.No, Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other. Please read Feedback: Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other? for more information on this supposed contradiction. God was the eyewitness to creation since He is the Creator, and He would have relayed to Adam and Eve what He had done or they would have already known since they were obviously created with knowledge (as seen by their use of language in Genesis 2–3). They were not “simple”; they were perfect because they had not suffered 6000 years of mutations like the rest of us! The last statement is an ad hominem attack, which we see so many times from evolutionists who will not discuss science but rather slander the individual. My doctorate is a PhD in the field of Molecular Genetics from The Ohio State University.
To whom did god tell this "eyewitness account" to? Adam and Eve? Before they were cast out, they were simple and wouldn't have understood. After, god didn't take the time to tell them the story of cosmology.
Sorry, your assertion makes no sense. I'm guessing, Dr. Georgia Purdom, that your "doctorate" is a "doctor of divinities (D.D.) and not a "doctor of philosophy [science]" (PhD) . . . .
A post by “jkotcon” states the following (and “homeschooldad” posted a similar argument):
Purdom is incorrect in the claim that evolution is not testable or repeatable. We continue to do this with everything from antibiotic-resistant bacterial in hospitals to "super-weeds" resistant to Round-up in farmer's fields.As I have stated over and over again in my writings and presentations for AiG, antibiotic resistant bacteria and herbicide resistant weeds are not examples of “evolution in action.” Instead, they are examples of natural selection, which is not the same thing as evolution. Natural selection is observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Therefore it is categorized as observational science. Evolution, in the sense of molecules-to-man, is not observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable, so it is categorized as historical science. I hope my readers will take the time to read both Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution? and What is Science? These are excellent resources for the truth about biology beginning with God’s Word.