Creation: Micro-Evolution=Changes Within Kind
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Creation: Micro-Evolution=Changes Within Kind”.
17 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
The Boston 3-Day
I will be walking the Boston 3-Day the last weekend in July in honor of Gregg's mom, Ryta Gail, who died from breast cancer when he was a little boy.
Find me on Facebook
Safe Site
We are committed to keeping the content on this site
family friendly and child safe.
-
Gregg & Hallee
Find Me on My Author Blog
* 
“One must accept all of this without question and blindly ignore any doubts that things like unpleasent facts and the laws of nature might introduce.”
It’s really amazing that you claim this about scientists.
“Scientists” are just as fallible as any other human being. That aside, just to be clear, I am making this claim about anyone who practices the religion of Darwinism in general, regardless of that Darwinist’s chosen vocation.
Would you care to argue any of the numerous scientific or logical claims I have made, presumably offering facts and logic as your own premise, or is a weak ad hominem attack all I should expect?
I don’t know anyone who practices the darwin religion. Do you?
I haven’t spent any time studying evolution. i know a bit from readings.
There is little of substance to disagree or agree with. Your tone is intentionally confrontational and your ideas vague. It seems your entire point of the article is to make science look idiotic. if that is your intention then you did excellent. yes, some theories are out there. so what they are theories.
your big bang theory is very misleading. several thoughts about it.
initial conditions – scientists bravely admit they don’t know…
Gravity is the force that pulled things together.
Also i am rather put off by your implication that scientists “believe” this theory. it is a theory; one of several with which scientists work. The theory can adequately explain many things that we know to be truths today.
stellar evolution: there is nothing really to argue, you don’t have any points. again, you are arguing against theories without any facts to discount them. scientific theories explain that we see. until you can prove them wrong, theories exist as such, theories.
chemical evolution – i am completely ignorant about this subject. I wonder why you take some scientific facts as truth but deny that other theories could ever be true. why do you suppose that only Helium can be fused nothing else. just wondering, i do not know the answer.
Life from non-life… there are so many interesting theories about this one. just because you say it can’t happen isn’t exactly proof. What i find particularly intriqing is the theory that there isn’t really a line between life and non-life. weird.
That’s enough for those… macroevolution for another post, so i don’t lose all this.
Thank you for your comments.
I respect your opinion that my “tone” is intentionally confrontational, but I also respectfully disagree. I’ll leave it there since anything more would only lend itself to unhelpful discussion over the vagaries of referring to a person’s “tone” in this media since tone is aural and the written word is visual. Any “tone” you may or may not infer is strictly subjective on your part.
I appreciate the admission of your ignorance on many points of this debate. I, too, was woefully ignorant on many of these topics as recently as five years ago. Hopefully, I can assist in filling in a large number of gaps in your knowledge.
My first creation post is a testimony to my transformation from a Nimrod to a believer in scientific truth. Specifically, when I learned scientific truth, I had to shed any belief in Darwinism. My second creation post reviewed the history of Darwinism going all the way back to Lamarck. The third established the “culture” or the “worldview” in which Darwinists engage. It is an elitist culture, a culture of fraud, hoax, intimidation, and lies on an “ignorant” populace. My fourth post on creation dispelled the notion that Darwinism had anything to do with actual science by demonstrating the impossibilities, both mathematical and scientific, that Darwinism could occur.
This, my fifth post, set the stage for the next several posts. I intend to go in depth into the various 5 Darwinian Evolution tenets. My approach to each will be to first explore its history, then evaluate its logical merit, then evaluate its mathematical and scientific soundness, look at any supporting evidence, then explore any cultural effects. This post, the one you chose to engage in, explained that the only type of evolution which actually occurs … micro-evoution … is in reality the exact same changes within kind that is documented in scripture.
You said you are rather put off by my implication that scientists “believe” this theory. I did not say this so you inferred it. Unless I am mistaken, I limit any implications to Darwinists, whether they work as scientists or hotel maids. Of course Darwinists must “believe” the theory to be factual as a point of their faith, since there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support it, much like the other 4 Darwinian tenets. On it’s merit as a scientific theory, it is not explanatory or predictive of anything.
You state that gravity is the force that pulled things together. But what things? There was NOTHING. The entire theory rests on the fact that nothing existing, yet somehow gravity existed, so what did gravity act upon? Furthermore, how can gravity exist if there is no mass? How can nothingness condense? How can nothingness spin? How does friction occur in a substanceless mass of nothingness? How can nothing get hot since there is not something? How can nothing explode? What does nothing use for fuel? How does nothing transform into something? Even the equations for Big Bang are so highly theoretical that they are mathematically impossible.
If you believe all that can happen, then great! Good for you! But that is a belief that is not founded in logic, facts, evidence, or science. It amounts to faith in a religious belief.
I am not being misleading. Far from it. I am stating facts, evidence, real science, and applying logic. The theory itself makes these ridiculous assertions and operates on these unfounded and scientifically unsound premises. This is what makes it so preposterous. It needs no assistance from me to sound idiotic.
I don’t want to retread, so I will say that the next three and a half posts will be dedicated exclusively to the Big Bang theory of Cosmic Evolution (the fourth segues into stellar evolution). I will cover it’s history, it’s logical problems, and its many, many scientific problems, look into the supposedly supporting evidence, and speak to its cultural effects.
If you feel my point is to make “science” look idiotic, you have missed the point by a wide margin. Darwinism is a philosophy. It is not, strictly speaking, science. I LOVE science. I write science fiction. I read scientific articles and watch “boring” scientific documentaries. Ask my 12 year old how boring they are. I certainly want to shed light on Darwinism, because I DO feel that it is harming real science — and culture — and it is one of the most unscientific and idiotic religious beliefs in the universe. I will not hesitate to point that out.
I want to make a distinction, here, as well. Twice now you have referred to first “scientists” and then “science” as if these amounted to the ultimate authority on all collected knowledge. I want to restate that “scientist” is a vocation, it is not a morally or intellectually impregnable universal law. It is a job. Scientists are human beings, and therefore just as fallible as any human being in any other vocation. Likewise, science is also not a morally or intellectually impregnable universal law. Strictly speaking, it is an amoral methodology or discipline that involves a process which leads to a discovered or predictive result based on observations.
Neither “science” or “scientists” amount to ultimate authority on any topic. To stake a claim based on either is to engage in the fallacy of “false appeal to authority” coupled with the fallacy of “reification” in terms of science. You are giving concrete characteristics to an abstract concept. Science, as a concept, is neither good nor bad in it’s pure form, and it certainly does not possess a mind, so it would be impossible to “make science look stupid” and as a rule I do not engage in the impossible.
My initial guest post on creation served as a testimony of how the paradigm of belief shifted in my very own life. So, to answer your question of do I know anyone who practices the religion of Darwinism, the answer is certainly yes. I, personally, was an acolyte of the faith. I practiced rather dogmatic methodological naturalism and toyed with the notion of secular humanism. In my mind, there existed a division between so-called scientific “facts” and my Christian religious “faith”. This belief resulted in a compromised worldview. When I started having doubts, and actual scientific facts only confirmed my doubts over and over again, I left the Darwinian fold.
There are other, far more famous members of the church of Darwin. Richard Dawkins comes to mind, the late Steven J. Gould, the late Isaac Asimov, Kenneth R. Miller, certainly Eugenia Scott, and certainly every sitting member on the board of the ACLU.
Secular Humanism is a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature and the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. When they die, they die forever and rot in the dirt. Ethically, therefore, they are by and large moral relativists. Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural process. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in Darwinian evolution.
To identify Secular Humanism as a religion would eliminate the Humanists’ main vehicle for the propagation of their faith — free public education as advocated by Marx. The Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion (Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488). Since then, numerous groups in the US, mainly Christian groups, have challenged the “preaching and teaching” of secular humanist doctrine (Darwinism) in schools under the establishment clause. This has caused Darwinists, in the last 20 years, to completely reverse their position that secular humanism is a religion and refer to it only as “science” just as you do in your remarks.
I am not dismissing the outstanding challenges you pose in your comment. Many of your questions with respect to the other 5 tenets of Darwinian evolution will be answered at length and in some detail in future posts. I intend to dedicate about 3 posts to each, though I suspect the biological macro-evolution information could take quite a bit more if I dispel each and every fraudulent hoax before laying down the argument.
Again, I appreciate the comments. I look forward to reading more.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘genetic barrier’, or what Mendel has to do with it, but
why even mention Mendel in 2010? It makes no sense to talk about his work except in a historical sense, when the knowledge of genetics now is so vastly greater than he could have imagined.
Are there genetic barriers (if that’s the correct phrase) between some types of animals? Yes. Does that mean there were genetic barriers between their distance ancestors? No.
Thank you for asking. You appear to argue two points.
Your first point is an example of cherry picking, which is a fallacy. In debate, you cannot restrict your opponent to only argue using references that tend to support your side of the debate. As much as we would like that, because we all like to appear to be right, the whole point of debate is to get at the truth and the fact is that we are fallible humans and often wrong. The entire field, therefore, is open and ought to be open, for discussion. I apologize that various intelligent people successfully refuted your belief decades or centuries ago, but those refutations should not be ignored simply because they are old. If it makes “no sense” to refer to Mendel other than in a “historical” sense, then why does it make perfect sense to refer to Darwin? That is cherry picking at it’s finest.
Also, to discard the lessons of the past is to presently bathe in ignorance. Does it make sense to refer to Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Pasteur? How about the even more ancient Socrates, Aristotle, or Josephus? To forget ancient truth turns us into mindless creatures that blink and think it’s a brand new day. Speaking for myself, I cannot turn off my intellect on that scale.
In short, your first point is fallacious on at least two fronts and without merit on its face. Don’t misunderstand me. I appreciate the question. And to answer the question directly, I can refer to Mendel in 2010 or 2020 or 4092, for that matter, provided Mendel’s point remains arguably valid. Whether the point is brand new or hundreds of years old has absolutely no bearing on it’s validity. I note that you do not dispute its validity, only its birthday, which — to speak with candor — is rather a weak position to take in a debate.
As to your second point, genetic barriers between kinds exist. Bright three year olds, for example, recognize that cats and dogs cannot get together and bring forth kuppies and pittens.
To posit that genetic barriers “may not” have existed at some time in the distant past immediately begs the question. I would not beg the question by asking, “Because God exists, and scripture is true, wouldn’t you agree that…?” In your case, the question isn’t “Because Darwin was right, wouldn’t you agree that genetic barriers may not have existed at some time in the distant past?” The question, in my mind, is the preceding question which I would frame like, “Wouldn’t you agree that Darwin was dead wrong?” If he is, as I believe, dead wrong, then the remaining antecedent question could hardly be more irrelevant.
Additionally, to posit that genetic barriers “may not” have existed at some time in the distant past is what is commonly known as an argument from ignorance, which is a fairly common fallacy in this debate. It also attempts to shift the burden of proof, another fallacy, and one which I generally do not entertain.
For example, I would not declare, “God exists! Now prove me wrong!” This is classic begging the question and shifting the burden of proof in an argument from ignorance.
Simply put, if you want to suggest that genetic barriers didn’t exist in some imaginary reality long ago and far away — all in accordance with the Darwinian creation myth — then it is up to you to prove such a laughable notion. It is not up to anyone else to disprove it. It is incumbent upon you to provide something — anything really — resembling evidence, observation, logic, or fact that supports your belief. It is not the responsibility of your opponent to bring evidence, observation, logic, or fact to disprove your belief when you are “ignorant” of anything that proves it in the first place. You didn’t bring any proof to the table outside of ignorance of refutation and a well begged question.
However, since it may ultimately be instructive and helpful to disprove your belief, I shall entertain it in this case.
Let’s ASSUME your point has some validity. In that case, we must ASSUME that the survival of the fittest imperative and natural selection methodologies (that unintelligent, undirected, random processes have the ability to select, plan, and execute) are sound. Let’s further ASSUME, for example, that ancient horses and ancient dogs could have 1) somehow overcome their mechanical issues, 2) decided they liked each other enough to breed, 3) decided that breeding would somehow benefit them in terms of fitness, and 4) successfully interbred and produced progeny. I must say, that is one whopping huge assumption.
So, okay, they each must have had FAR MORE genetic information than either modern horses and dogs actually have in order to bring forth progeny (e.g: be genetically compatible enough to produce offspring). While such a notion is somewhat sound based on your gigantically unbelievable ASSUMPTION, it runs counter to the entire Darwinian theory which states that life began in “some warm little pond” as tiny “simple lower life forms” with just a few randomly formed amino acids and that life is “evolving” into more and more grand and lofty and “highly evolved” beings with more and more dense information packed into our genetic code. The implication is that living things retain ALL beneficial genetic information and over vast amounts of time discard any vestigial information that is not directly beneficial for survival — all in accordance with “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” to conclude this Just-So story.
It follows that the ability to cross genetic barriers would certainly be beneficial. Definitely a trait worth keeping. It follows that if this trait existed between ancient life forms, that there is no “evolutionary” benefit to discarding it. Why was it not kept, then? Why is it NEVER observed in ANY of the millions of observed modern day species?
The assumption also introduces further very real problems into the Darwinian framework such as: Where did all that original information that is now mysteriously lost to the ages come from in the first place? While order can sometimes rise from undirected processes, order does not constitute information. Order cannot organize beyond simple structures such as bubbles and crystals. It is a proven fact that — in accordance with known universal laws — randomness cannot generate information such as the incredibly dense information in a single genome and the vastly and irreducibly complex structures and processes that exist in place all around said information that intelligently decodes and leverages that information and does so with all with highly refined efficiency observed in all of the processes of life as we know it.
The fact is that randomness can only generate more randomness. It takes intelligence to create information. That truth is what put Darwinism as a theory in crisis over 40 years ago and is the very truth that dedicated Darwinists are fervently battling to this very day.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that genetic barriers ever did NOT exist at any time in the past, that they do NOT exist today (they do), or that they will somehow magically NOT exist at some future date. Modern horses cannot cross breed with anything but other kinds of horses. What evidence is there to suggest that ancient horses had that ability? There is none. Modern bananas cannot cross pollinate with any type of plant other than some kind of banana. What evidence is there that ancient bananas could? There is none. Here’s some genetic knowledge we have gained since Mendel (and Darwin). The “simple lower life form” that is the modern fern has over 900 chromosomes — literally hundreds more than human beings — yet ferns can only ever cross-breed with other kinds of ferns and produce, as a result, some kind of fern. What evidence is there that ancient, modern, or future ferns could cross-pollinate with ANY other types of plants? Right. There is none.
Bottom line. What evidence is there to suggest that ANY life form could EVER cross the genetic barriers that separate kinds? There IS NONE.
In conclusion, I find your second point unsupported by logic, evidence, observation, facts, or even the framework of the Darwinian theory itself even though you purportedly believe it to be true. The only thing that supports your belief is hope – a personal hope that Darwin was right — and hope is never a strategy for success.
The truth is that one would have to believe with a religious fervor burning deep down in one’s belly with the institutional and abiding conviction that only ever arises as a result of blind faith that at some time in a fictitious and purely imaginary place that somehow existed both long ago and far away in which the laws of the universe could be manipulated and/or put on hold — only there might such things be possible. Of course, these beliefs stand in stark defiance to present observable reality, all evidence to the contrary, and simple logic; but one must discard all those things in order for these suppositions to be believed. Even so, those suppositions only appear valid in one’s highly biased heart and very closed mind. The belief would still not have any bearing on actual reality, science, or logic. It would simply represent a single tenet of one’s secular faith.
Thank you for your questions. I honestly appreciate you taking the time to read my post and argue your points. Please visit often and comment even more often.
Allow me to beg the question of my beliefs by offering a sincere prayer for you that the Creator of the universe makes Himself real to you as He did for me.
Gregg
In response to your comment about my second point: my comment was very brief and I did not write clearly what I meant, which resulted in a misunderstanding.
.
The genetic or reproductive barriers that exits between, for example, dogs and cats are not a problem for their evolution acording to evolutionary biology, but the reason is different from what you thought I meant. The reason is NOT that in the past there were not genetic barriers between such different types of animals as dogs and cats. The reason is that in every step in the reproductive series from the ancestral carnivore to today’s dog or cat, the animal contributing a new mutation was able to reproduce with the other animals in its population. The other animals in the population were sufficiently similar that there was not a genetic barrier to overcome. At some point there was a barrier to reproduction between the line leading to dogs and the line leading to cats, making them separate breeding populations. Otherwise they could not have developed different features because the populations would have continually mixed those genes. But the barrier could have initially been a geographic barrier, for instance, not a genetic barrier. The genetic and reproductive barriers would have developed between the two populations over time as different mutations occurred and became fixed in the two separated lines. (not sure if that is clear.)
.
According to evolutionary biology, evoution of the various types of animals was not solely a result of randomness; it was a result of essentialy random mutations combined with selection. Because of selection, the total process was not random. I’m not talking here about abiogenesis, but about biological evolution; once there were reproducing cells – bacteria or archaea – there was raw material for this combination of mutation and selection to act on.
(Abiogenesis, which you are apparently going to post more about tomorrow, is a more complicated question, and it has definitely not be worked out at this time, although there are some possibilities that are being explored, such as RNA. )
Let me just say that I appreciate how you very carefully state that you believe in standard evolutionary theory. There is really no evidence that the foundation of those beliefs are true. The foundation of those beliefs amount to a giant tower of assumptions. Where you and I differ is that I do not believe in those assumptions, mainly because the logical and scientific evidence against the assumptions is greater, in my estimation, than the evidence that supports it.
.
For example, one of the main problems with standard evolutionary biology is the lack of engines that might drive the evolutionary process. Without introducing design, or “selection” or some other intelligent agent or faculty, there is no imperative for randomness to drive the process.
.
Replying to, “According to evolutionary biology, evolution of the various types of animals was not solely a result of randomness; it was a result of essentially random mutations combined with selection. Because of selection, the total process was not random. I’m not talking here about abiogenesis, but about biological evolution; once there were reproducing cells – bacteria or archaea – there was raw material for this combination of mutation and selection to act on.”
.
I do not believe that dreams and wishes and hopes can drive beneficial evolutionary change because I do not believe in Larmarkism. For my further thoughts on this please read this post– Creation: Deer with a Dream of a Long Neck
.
It has been shown that mutation cannot drive evolutionary change since nearly 100% of mutations are harmful. For my further thoughts on this please read this post– Creation: Engines of Evolution
.
When one attributes the ability to plan, select, forecast, and execute to “nature” you commit the fallacy of reification. For my further thoughts on this please read this post– Creation: Mother Nature’s Plan
It will take me a while to read your whole comment.
On the first point, I do dispute the validity of your statement about Mendel’s work. I don’t know who made the claim that you stated above about Mendel’s empirical proof. You could cite your source and explain the reasons why your source comes to those conclusions. But I am skeptical that the claim has any validity.
I don’t think Mendel’s experiments addressed your points at all.
I don’t think he intended to address those points.
I don’t think he claimed to have reached those conclusions.
I don’t think he had the ability to reach those conclusions.
For one thing, he worked with peas. Whatever conclusion he reached with peas might have turned out to be relevant to other types of organisms, but his work alone could not have ‘proved’ that. (Science normally doesn’t talk about ‘proving’ things anyway.)
For another thing, his goal was to study heredity by breeding different types of peas together. Since all his experiments were designed around breeding interfertile types of peas, he was not using types of peas which would not hybridize. it seems unlikely that those breeding experiments could say anything conclusive about BARRIERS to breeding. (And I don’t see how those experiments could possibly be thought to have investigated anything about species changing over long periods of time.)
For another thing, since at the time nothing was known about genetics or chromosomes or DNA, there is no way his work could talk about genetic barriers. He bred his peas by transferring pollen. He could not have differentiated between a genetic barrier and a reproductive barrier.
As for Darwin, his work is also important in a historical context.
Mendel was looking at interesting questions for his time, but he was not looking at the questions you mentioned in your statement. What he researched by breeding peas is now understood on a much more precise level. His pea experiments ARE talked about in biology classes. But his work was just a crude starting point, and he could only look at certain types of heredity from the outside. If you do think his experiments were relevant to the points you mentioned, maybe you could explain specifically.
Let me understand. Is it your position that a pea plant can cross pollinate with some kind of plant that isn’t a pea plant? Or that it could at some time in the distant past long ago and far away? Because if that is your position, I’m not sure we can carry out a rational discussion.
No, that’s not my position.
Very well. If that is not your position, then we essentially are in agreement. What exactly is it that you are attempting to take exception to? Is it simply the fact that I mentioned Mendel’s work? So what? Why quibble. Neither Mendel nor his work form the basis or foundation of my argument. He and his work only support the larger argument — which we apparently agree upon. If, as you say, Mendel’s experiments don’t address my points, then why don’t you address my points without chasing rhetorical rabbits?
The summations of my points are that 1) so-called micro-evolution is not Darwinian evolution, but rather simply modifications within kind and 2) so-called macro-evolution has never occurred because it does not occur and, biologically, cannot occur today. In all of human history, there is not even one single case of macro-evolution that has not been shown to be utterly fraudulent. You can easily prove me utterly and completely wrong by citing one verifiable instance of macro-evolution having taken place.
My position is the standard position of evolutionary biology: for instance that dogs and cats share a common ancestral species.
….
I think you would say that the development of dogs, cats, and bears from a single ancestral species would be the macroevolution that you say cannot happen.
.
I think you would say that the development of wolves and coyotes from a common ancestor would be what you call microevolution, and you would say that it can happen. I think you would say that wolves and coyotes, although categorized biologically at this time as two species are in fact part of one ‘kind’. (Wolves and coyotes are able to hybridize.) I assume you would include jackals in the dog kind. I am not sure about whether you would include foxes since they are unable to hybridize with wolves.What I have seen written about ‘kinds’ seems usually to be more like a genus or family level classification than species level.
I think some people think only one ‘dog kind’ was on the Ark and all the canid species developed from that, including foxes; I think other people might guess that both a wolf kind and a fox kind were on the Ark. (To be clear, I don’t think there was an Ark.)
I think you might say that lions and tigers could have developed from a common ancestor; they are also able to hybridize in certain situations. I don’t know if you would include all cat-like species, the felids, in the cat kind; I think some people do. (And bears have a similar situation.)
_.
According to biology, the same processes which lead to the evolution of the wolf and coyote from a common dog kind ancestor and to the evolution of various cat species from a common cat kind ancestor have led to the evolution of the ‘dog kind’ ancestor and the ‘cat kind’ ancestor from a common mammalian carnivore ancestor. All evolution is a series of small changes which could be called microevolution. There is no difference in the processes leading to the change from a dog ancestral species to wolves and coyotes and from the processes leading from a mammalian carnivore ancestral species to a dog ancestral species and a cat ancestral species and then to dogs and cats. The processes are the same; they would include mutations, drift, natural selection, and barriers to reproduction such a geographic barriers. (I am not clear on whether what you mean by microevolution includes the same processes that are included in the biological explanation of the evolution btween the dog ancestral species and wolves and coyotes.)
At each point in the history of a species, if there has been a mutation in one animal in the population, the animal must be able to reproduce with the animals in its population that do not have the mutation, or else the mutation cannot be passed on. (I think this is not true in plants if they are able to self-pollinate.)
X.
To be clear, what I have said here is not an argument, but a statement of what I think. I am sure you are familiar with this idea already, and I know you disagree with it. What I said is not an attempt to convince you or to describe the reasons why this is the accepted idea in biology, but to give my position.
X.
(As for Mendel, you said he had proved that one species could not change into a different species over millions of years and that there were genetic barriers. I don’t think it’s quibbling to point out that his work was not able to prove that. And if it is not important enough for me to respond to that statement, then I could argue that it was also not important enough for you to have included it in your post, although it probably IS quibbling to point that out.)
———–
(trying to figure out a way to make blank lines between paragraphs, since the comment system seems to omit them.)
I am confused about exactly what you mean by genetic barrier. It seems you talk about barriers between two different types of animal being able to reproduce, but you also talk about a barrier between one type of animal changing into another type.
Oh, gosh. I’m sorry your so confused. I will try to clear up your confusion.
Neither one is possible.
There.
Hey Gregg,
.
I know your post was created a long time ago, but I came across it as I was searching images of microevolution and found it very encouraging! I am currently in a student teaching assignment at the high school level and my first assignment was to teach the evolution unit. As a Christian, I wondered how I should approach it. It’s been an interesting experience, but honestly, a little disheartening to teach a theory I do not believe to be true. I am very thankful to have stumbled upon your post, thanks for sharing your info and for being passionate about your position.
.
Thanks again!
.
Jamie
You are an answer to prayer. The secular world likes to shut down all freedoms established by the free practice clause. The fact is that all of us are free to express our own beliefs. We are not protected in telling others what they should believe. I pray you continue to share your personal beliefs with others who wish to understand your worldview.
.
God Bless,
Gregg