Baylor Rejects Intelligent Design

Baylor University, formerly a great Baptist university in Texas has unveiled their true colors. They have succumbed to the religion of Darwinism by rejecting the concept of Intelligent Design (that the universe in which we live was created by a greater Intelligence). Biblical Christians reject the ridiculous theory of Darwinism and evolution.
Below is a quote from The Berean Call which shows the depths to which Baylor has sunk.

We’re saddened to report on a recent administrative action at Baylor University (a Baptist school) in Texas, where administrators ordered a professor’s personal website be shut down because of “anonymous concerns” that the site supported ideas associated with the intelligent design movement (IDM).
Baylor’s record on dealing with academic freedom, particularly as it concerns intelligent design the IDM, is now all the more odious. In 2000, Baylor removed intelligent design theorist William Dembski, now at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, because Dembski “refus[ed] to rescind a statement supporting Intelligent Design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry.”
The professor under fire this time is Robert Marks, distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering, who launched a website called the “Evolutionary Informatics Lab” in June to study whether natural selection can use chance mutations to generate new information. “Marks’ conclusions, as explained on the website, placed limits on the scope of Darwinism and offered scientific support for Intelligent Design,” explains Baptist Press.
The debate, surprisingly, does not concern the validity of Marks’ research, but rather “Baylor’s policies and procedures of approving centers, institutes, products using the university’s name,” according to Lori Fogleman, director of media communications at Baylor. In July, after giving an interview to the IDM-promoting Discovery Institute, Marks was asked by Baylor’s engineering school dean to remove the website. In response, Marks requested a meeting for discussion, but just shy of a week before the scheduled meeting, all references to the Evolutionary Informatics Lab on Marks’ website were forcibly removed.
Should we be surprised? Dembski, the previous victim, offers a fairly chilling perspective on academic freedom when it comes to disagreement with Darwin:
“You have to understand, in the current academic climate, Intelligent Design is like leprosy or heresy in times past. To be tagged as an ID supporter is to become an academic pariah, and this holds even at so-called Christian institutions that place a premium on respectability at the expense of truth and the offense of the Gospel.”

Excerpted from Answers In Genesis

Pray for the students and administration at Baylor.

Click here — Find out how to be absolutely sure of Heaven.

64 responses to “Baylor Rejects Intelligent Design

  1. Hello again Anthony. I still appreciate your taking the time to engage this conversation. I appreciate the fact that the condescension (perceived on my part!) was not deliberate. Thank you for that.
    Since I don’t have the time either (we both do have work, & lives apart from blogging), I won’t try to respond to all you have posted. Thank you by the way for checking out the link. I didn’t actually expect you to agree with it, but I am glad you at least checked it out. You merely brushed it off, but the truth is that it is not as bad as you make it out to be. Some very intelligent people have spoken there, & I do not apologize for posting it. Maybe someone else more open to truth will peruse it & interact with it. No problem, but I do genuinely thank you for glancing.
    I must say that I am very sorry about the precious little girl that you mentioned. I will certainly pray for her & her Mom, just as I will continue for you. Sin has done a number in this world, & though God hates it, He nevertheless gave His own dear Son’s life for it, & one Day will make it right. It would be good to be right with Him when He does. I am sure this dear one’s mother hates what happened to her precious one, but if she will but trust in His Son who loves you & her, & even a no-good like me (no lie: if you knew me like I know me, you’d never blog at me again!) she will one day have a new perfect body.
    You again dismissed Heb.3:4, but you would have to admit that it is true. Every house IS built by someone & the Builder of all things is God. Of course we know that He did not choose sin, we did. But because He cared enough to give us freedom of choice, we wretches chose sin. Yet, He did not give up on us, as I would certainly have done in His place. One thing you can be thankful for, & that is that I’m not God!
    Oh, & all the vitriol you spew out on Him does not hurt Him, He’s had it done many times. But it will hurt us.
    Oh, & by the way, again you have accused me of choosing my own definitions. I am simply giving the simple definition of faith, which is taking someone at their word. Faith is only as good as its object, maybe you might want to take some care about that as well. I am very confident in the One I am trusting, though my trust is still very weak at times. That is certainly not His fault but mine. But He is helping me in this area as well.
    One final thing: if the sense of right & wrong does not come from God, then I wonder where it does come from? If you are saying that it came from somewhere else, that would be conveniently attempting to ditch the Cause but trying to hang on the effect. As you say, you can’t have it both ways.
    Hey, I must go. I have said probably all I plan to on this. I do hope you’ll at least think about some of what has been shared. Take care.

  2. DH Wyatt,

    Well, the condescension was not deliberate.

    You dismiss my Weinberg quote, calling it “beside the point here.” So you failed to see why I employed it? It was not to bring up a corollary about what ‘god’ means. It was to show you that throwing around words that can have different meanings, often depending on their context, is not helpful and in fact counterproductive. You were speaking of ‘faith,’ and using faith to describe some fairly mundane relationships (bank). So yes, Weinberg on energy and the meaning of god – besides the point. But that wasn’t my point.

    You say: “He & you by the way are doing what you have accused me of doing & that is bringing up evidence that is unassailable because all a matter of faith.” Baloney. And crooked. What have I asserted that is unassailable? (please answer this) What assertions have I made on “faith?” (Careful with your chosen definition!) This is a patently false accusation – I should wish for an apology – for such approaches are exactly what I deride in the faithful; that is, being able to claim things on faith and not feeling like they owe anyone a shred of evidence. I have not done this. Weinberg, as far as I can tell, as certainly not done this (you don’t get a Nobel Peace Prizes from a career of faithful assertions). What were you speaking of? What could possibly have been speaking of?

    You’re correct. I had missed the link but have seen it now. As it loaded I told myself not to waste my time…but persisted on. It was worst than I thought it could be. I mean, it was really bad. To say that it is not scholarship would be to do it a favor by placing in the same sentence of scholarship. Was there no need for citations? Or were we to assume that primary sources in this case would be covered by the bible? Don’t you see how assertion laden the entire page is? Most of this was written with New Testament manuscripts being the source for the assertion! A book containing so many contradictions that it is laughable to assert anything serious about it or from it! This is not rigorous scholarship. You would do well to look elsewhere for your buttresses – the Catholics seem to make the least worst case.

    Your Hebrews 3:4 smacks teleological. First, it does not follow that just because there are objects of complexity that there had to be a designer. In philosophy, this is called a non sequitur. Asserting that there had to be a designer is merely the easy way out – it is an intellectual cop out because it frees you from doing any more thinking. Second, if you want to chock up the design of the world and everything in it and place it all on god’s resume, then you have to include bad design. Two doors down from me lives an innocent child, 7 years old. I was speaking to her mother who was taking her daughter out for a stroller ride in the park. She told me that Lynn had gotten the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck during labor and the resulting oxygen deprivation left this poor girl with a lolling head and uncontrollable limbs. The tongue that she should be using to form words about her favorite things in life is instead masticated between her dentition every waking hour.

    Some design, huh?

    Good design, bad design, and god. You stand near a slippery slope: god is either an incompetent dunce when it comes to some design aspects or, worse, beyond this breathtaking ineptitude, is the work of a sadistic and evil intelligence. You pick.

    Third, positing a creator, or a primer mover, or a first being, or an efficient cause does not explain anything at all. I am not sure why this point still needs to be listed. You are trying to explain the complexity that you see in the world by postulating something that must be infinitely more complex, god. This is, in the highest degree, absurd. And again. You explained nothing. You merely forced me to ask, once again, who created god? And – I’ll preempt you – if god can be eternal, without beginning or end, why can’t the physical universe? Do you think you are entitled to a monopoly on eternity, beginnings, and ends? You aren’t. And you still have an infinite and sterile regress on you hands.

    That we get our sense of right and wrong from god is malign. I’ll have to save it for a later post, for I must run – its a conversation I’d like to have – but I can see that you aren’t afraid of slippery slopes. However, you might want to check with your god to make sure that its okay that you take credit for him, by proxy, for our moral concepts.

    Please, DH Wyatt, don’t pray for me. If you think there is a god willing to listen or intercede on anyone’s behalf, tell it to go two doors down from me and take care of Lynn.

  3. Anthony,

    I’m sure you know I sense the condescension in your posts, & that is fine. I am also fairly certain you did not persuse the link that I provided, since you asked for the evidence that is provided in it. Your quote from physicist Weinberg is interesting, but beside the point here. He & you by the way are doing what you have accused me of doing & that is bringing up evidence that is unassailable because all a matter of faith. It makes perfect sense to believe in the God of the Bible, since as Hebrews 3:4 says, “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” When did you see something that just “happened” out of nothing? When did anyone see a beautiful work of art, or a beautifully designed automobile, & think, “Wow! That’s amazing how that just created itself!” Obviously we want to know who designed & built it. Simple, yes, but true. Often the most amazing truths are simple at first glance, but the implications are staggering.
    But I do want to address one of the subjects you brought up. You said, “Never would I describe my relationship with my financial institution as one based on ‘faith.’ In fact, you used precisely the word that I would choose to use: trust. I trust the bankers and the tellers to do right by me and my assets. They also trust in me to make my payments in full and on time. We each have proof that each does so and we also have means of recourse if the other does not hold up on their end of the deal. Same goes for the cooks at any restaurants I might visit: I trust them to do right by me, as a paying customer, and they expect payment in return. “Faith” when used properly, should never enter into the equation. “Faith” employed in the nebulous fashion above (per you) may very well enter the equation; but then it is not ‘faith’ as I use in reference to a god. You have to decided what you want faith to mean. Trust? Loyalty? Belief without or in spite of evidence? You tell me what definition you want to use, you can’t have it all ways.” You have missed the point sir. I am saying the evidence is there to ponder, though you seem to be avoiding it. I am not saddling you with the burded of proof, it is already there. You have simply chosen to reject it. But I digress & apologize. You spoke of “trust(ing)” your financial institutions, & I am glad you brought that up. You trust them because they have earned that trust & that is perfectly acceptable. It is the same with trust in the Word of God. It has proven true to me. It has never let me down. Yet there had to have been a time in which you did act on faith by trusting these institutions the 1st time to handle your money correctly. You based your decision to trust them with your money for some reason, whether you now remember what it was or not. Then as you continued to bank with them, your trust level increased as they continued to prove trustworthy.
    That brings up a whole new point, & that is what if someone came along who was not trustworthy & stole your money? Yes, they would very likely be caught & prosecuted, & I certainly hope they would be. Yet the fact remains that it is wrong to steal & we rightly would desire the thief to be punished. This all comes from the Law of God. Another strong evidence for the existence of God: an innate sense of right & wrong.
    So, the evidence is real, & there to be examined, & now I am referring to Christ’s resurrection, which you have chosen to disparage.
    I really do appreciate your taking the time to read my post. I am also sure you are aware that I am not the best at putting my thoughts & beliefs into words. Yet I appreciate your taking the time to at least consider the truth of what I attempt to assert, & that is that the Word of God has weathered the innumerable attacks on it & it still remains true. It has proven itself time & time again. I don’t worry about it ever being refuted, not because I think I can make up the rules of what faith is. Faith is only as god as its object, & mine is perfect, the risen, living Lord Jesus Christ. I am so thankful that He forgave me of all my many sins & promised me a Home with Him when this life is over, as it inevitably will be one day, maybe even today, we don’t know. All other concerns aside, Anthony, I want you to know that I am praying for you.

  4. questionable.

  5. questions taste = questionably taste. Sorry. Thank you.

  6. The winking smiley face is supposed to be an end parentheses. FYI

  7. All,

    In reverse order:

    Howard – Yes. In my experience this is the aspect of the theory of evolution by natural selection that is most often misunderstood. The creationists rightly protest to the (false) view that evolution is a “random” process. Indeed, it would be ludicrous process if it were left up to random processes. But it is not, and you have already explained this lucidly.

    D.H. Wyatt –
    Thank you for taking the time.

    I was very surprised to be the subject of this assertion: “Actually, sir, it is you that is hiding behind your blind faith that the Resurrection is not true.” This, in effect, gives us a wonderful example of a logical fallacy. You are trying to saddle me with the burden of proof for an assertion (the resurrection) that was made by YOU (or the faithful 2000+ years ago). Said another way, you expect ME, the cynic, the skeptic, to disprove unfalsifiable claims made by the faithful. I’m sorry, it doesn’t work that way. This is an established philosophical tenet, popularized by Russell’s “Celestial Teapot” analogy:

    “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
    (B. Russell, Is There God, 1952)

    Change “china teapot” for “The Resurrection,” or “a god,” and, with any honesty, you’ll see the fallacy rise right up before your eyes (pun intended). Sir, the onus is on you.

    Now, I am genuinely interested in the so-called “evidence” discovered or put forth by Ramsay, Wallace, McDowell, Montgomery, Strobel, et al. My knee jerk is to dismiss it without even hearing any of it, for I suspect that my definition of evidence is hardly similar to yours, and doubly so when referenced as “hard evidence…admissible in court…” But my knee jerk is over ruled by my open mind and my “fortitude” to try and understand. Mr. Wyatt, will you share said “evidence?”

    I appreciate your attempt to extrapolate “faith” to some common, everyday occurrence, but I believe it fails for a few reasons, most notably semantics. Never would I describe my relationship with my financial institution as one based on ‘faith.’ In fact, you used precisely the word that I would choose to use: trust. I trust the bankers and the tellers to do right by me and my assets. They also trust in me to make my payments in full and on time. We each have proof that each does so and we also have means of recourse if the other does not hold up on their end of the deal. Same goes for the cooks at any restaurants I might visit: I trust them to do right by me, as a paying customer, and they expect payment in return. “Faith” when used properly, should never enter into the equation. “Faith” employed in the nebulous fashion above (per you) may very well enter the equation; but then it is not ‘faith’ as I use in reference to a god. You have to decided what you want faith to mean. Trust? Loyalty? Belief without or in spite of evidence? You tell me what definition you want to use, you can’t have it all ways.

    Permit me to end on your words, “Yes there is a difference between believing the resurrection & going to the bank…” Yes, indeed there is. And: “…but at the basic level there is not.” If we use words loosely and without regard to clarity, then agreed. But if we use words in even a slightly strict sense, then there is a tremendous difference.

    Sorry, I’ve decided not to end on your words, DHW. Instead, I’ll use those of Physicist Steven Weinberg when he writes, “One hears it said that ‘God is the ultimate’ or God is our better nature’ or ‘God is the universe.’ Of course, like any other word, the word ‘God’ can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that ‘God is energy,’ then you can find God in a lump of coal.” This summarizes everything nicely – might you see the distinction now?


    You, sir, said it better than I could have: “Elementary, my friend.” Your rebuke didn’t accomplish anything except to advertise your being a nitpicker and being concerned with insignificant details. And yes, insignificant they were – it was clear to all what PH was trying to get across by the context of his/her sentence. As I said, you worded it better than I would have: I would have used “sophomoric.” Elementary is closer to your actions (and those of PH, explained below).

    Will you entertain a thought for me? What if “Doubting Thomas,” when questioning Jesus on the validity of the whole story (In my opinion, just a story of the Bible built to stigmatize the skeptic, and laud the ‘flock’) came to him with a terrible stutter and demanded to see evidence of the five corresponding wounds of Christ? Do you think gentle Jesus, meek and mild, would have berated old Thomas on account of his handicap? For a man such as yourself that sings the praises of Jesus, this seems of questions taste.

    To be fair, ol’ PH, much as I agree with him, would have done well to leave off “grumpy old man” as this accomplishes as much, nay, as little, as your subsequent comments. I should have seen this and included him in my musings on ad hominem attacks. I did not, my apology to you, sir.

    As I mentioned earlier, this is a serious debate with serious implications. Why cheapen it? Why promote more heat than light?

  8. Matjew wrote:

    “The PC police demand that all of us believe that the entire history of life on earth happened RANDOMLY (natural selection, etc.).”

    Actually, that’s quite wrong. the only people who say that evolution is a completely random process are creationists and IDers. Evolution has 3 components: heredity, variation, and selection. Heredity is completely non-random as it attempts to exactly duplicate genes from the previous generation. Variation is mostly random, we think, although there are some non-random mechanisms in there too, and the scale can vary anywhere from single nucleotide mutations to complete genome duplication. Selection is based on interaction with an environment (including other organisms) and is only random if the environment is. I don’t believe that anyone can argue that our planet looks like white noise – sense organs would be useless in such a context. So selection works as a way for species to learn from their environment. Learning is not random.

    “To raise the possibility that something more than mere random mutation reshuffling of binary DNA code led to all the complexity of life on earth is not heresy. It’s good science.”

    Yes and it’s called the theory of evolution. Try studying it, you might learn something.

    The theories of Behe and Dembski are not science. They predict no actual observations of natural events. They are more like philosophical meta-theories about science, postulating that science will never be able to provide a natural explanation for certain phenomena. Behe in particular has named several biological systems which he says cannot be explained. However science continues to make progress and in my opinion Behe has already been proved wrong at least 3 times, which means his theory is garbage. Dembski doesn’t appear to be able to do his math correctly, so it’s hard to know whether his theory would hold up if he ever came up with a version that wasn’t broken. But so far, his theory is not only not right, it’s “not even wrong”.

  9. Anthony,

    Thanks for at least reading what I wrote!

    I wonder if you don’t take things on faith? Certainly you do. Do you ever do any banking? I would be surprised if you kept all your money in a sock drawer or maybe bury it in your backyard? Do you ever eat in a restaurant, or even buy food in a grocery store? Do you trust the cooks not to poison your food, or the bank teller not to put your money in someone else’s account? You probably don’t even know most of these people, yet you allow them to do what they do on faith. Yes there is a difference between believing the resurrection & going to the bank, but at the basic level there is not. Believe me, if I am wrong, I wouldn’t be nearly in as much trouble as you if you are wrong. Of course, that is not why I believe it. There is very much reasoning involved in checking out the evidence, just not blind faith which unbelievers must rely on, & of course that also is faith, just in a different object, or proposition. The resurrection has been proven time & time again, many times by folks who were intellectually honest enough to check out the evidence. Just a few of the names of those who have done so are Sir William Ramsay, Lew Wallace (author of Ben Hur), Josh McDowell, John Warwick Montgomery, Lee Strobel and more. They set out just to disprove it & after examining it, they had to admit that the evidence, & I am talking of hard evidence that would be admissible in court, was so convincing, they either would have to lie to themselves or accept it as true. There are many books written on the subject now, so that checking it out wouldn’t be very difficult, if one has the fortitude to try it. Actually, sir, it is you that is hiding behind your blind faith that the Resurrection is not true. I also am pretty sure you trust some things you can’t see or understand. I certainly do, & the resurrection is not the only one, it is just the one with the most verifiable evidence in its favor. If my bro. Jack doesn’t mind me posting this link, here is one to popnder:
    God lead you as you search.

    Bro. Jack, thank you for your kind words. You are certainly a blessing to me & I appreciate you very much.

  10. Anthony,

    You know not of whom you speak when you rant about Wyatt. Your description may fit some of your friends — but not my brother in Christ, David!

    And, about the “admonishment over spelling?”

    One who presents himself as a wise scientist betrays his lack of knowledge and education when he does not know the difference between “liar” and lier,” or “ever” and “every.” Different words — different meanings. Elementary, my friend.

    If this is an example of the younger generation being superior to the older, we are in a heap of trouble.

    Just an observation.

    In Christ eternally,


  11. Bro David,


    Some of these pseudo scientists typify the Biblical description:

    “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth,”.
    2 Timothy. 3:7

    I pray they will come to the Truth, Jesus Christ.

    In Christ eternally,


  12. D.H. Wyatt: Yuck. Don’t you see that what you call “truth” are merely assertions? There is not a grain of truth in asserting that JC resurrected. How could anyone hope to ‘refute’ it? You’re tucked nice and safe behind the wall of faith. Reason is no good here. Logic is not good here. You’re safe from ANYTHING that might call into question or falisfy your belief! Amazing thing, faith! You make claims that are unfalsifiable! This is absurd in the highest degree! You’ll never have to account for anything…just run and jump behind that wall and throw up your white faith flag. Get your head out of the clouds!

    What’s with the admonishment over spelling? Is that what we’ve come to?

  13. Wow, bro. Jack, this topic certainly came back to life, didn’t it?!
    It strikes me almost funny to hear folks tout “science” as the end-all of how one ought to make their decisions, since science is simply man’s observance of what he thinks he sees around him. It is changing all the time in many ways, yet not one iota of the Bible’s truth has ever been successfully refuted, most especially the piece-de-resistance of it all, the resurrection of Christ, though many have & still do try! The Bible’s truth is unchanging & unuchangeable! I can’t forget Dr. W. A. Criswell’s statement (A Baylor graduate by the way, of many years ago when it was sound!) He said, basically that science was like a chicken, it is molting all the time! He then gave this humorous but true-to-life quip. He said a woman was having trouble sleeping, so she went to her doctor about it once again. He told her to eat something before she went to bed. She then responded, “But doctor! You just told me last week that I was not to eat before going to bed! Why the change?” His response: “Tut, tut madam. Science has made great strides in this last week!” Thanks, but I’ll stick with the unchanging eternal Word of God. It’s revelation for me over speculation. The choice is clear: Either revelation from the One who was there & did it, or speculation by men who only see a tiny speck of time & don’t even understand the speck they see! God, on the other hand, sees the end from the beginning. (Isa.46:10) He doesn’t need a Creator, since He IS the Creator! If you ask who created god, you just admit that your “god” is a created being himself. The God of the Bible is the Creator & has none to answer to!
    But, before I end this already too-long post, may I say that science, when done right, & not made a religion such as evolutionary thought is, does help mankind as God meant it to. He created many helpful things in our earth that He has allowed man to find that are very helpful. Your list of believers who have done so is impressive. Thank you bro. Jack for posting this. Thank God that He loves us enough to send His Son to die for our sins. Mine are many, & I am so thankful that He did not leave me to die ini them as I deserve. Praise His Name. May the Lord bless you bro. Jack.

  14. PH of Baylor,

    Obviously you are soon to be a freshman at Baylor..
    What do you mean when you say, “Robert Marks is also a lier?” Did you mean “liar?” Surely you know the difference.

    In your last pert little “P.S.S.” you said “ever.” What do you mean? Are you a modern English teacher or are you the product of a modern day high school education – or both?

    Are you sure you are a student at Baylor?

    In Christ eternally,


  15. It will be tough for this “grumpy old man” to post this in a readable format but please bear with me.
    Atheists and those who deny the very God who created them have no monopoly on the sciences.

    This list is from Dan Graves’ book Scientists of Faith (Kregel Resources: Grand Rapids, MI; 1996). The book is subtitled: Forty-Eight Biographies of Historic Scientists and Their Christian Faith.

    John Philoponus Aristotle’s early Christian critic
    Hugh of St. Victor theologian of science
    Robert Grosseteste reform-minded bishop-scientist
    Roger Bacon Doctor Mirabiles
    Dietrich von Frieberg the priest who solved the mystery of the rainbow
    Thomas Bradwardine student of motion
    Nicole Oresme inventor of scientific graphic techniques
    Nicholas of Cusa grappler with infinity
    Georgias Agricola founder of metallurgy
    Johannes Kepler discoverer of the laws of planetary motion
    Johannes van Helmont founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology
    Francesco Maria Grimaldi discoverer of the diffraction of light
    Blaise Pascal mathematical prodigy and universal genius
    Robert Boyle founder of modern chemistry
    John Ray cataloger of British flora and fauna
    Isaac Barrow Newton’s teacher
    Antonie van Leeuwenhoek discoverer of bacteria
    Niels Seno founder of geology
    James Bradley discoverer of the aberration of starlight
    Ewald Georg von Kleist inventor of the Leyden jar
    Carolus Linnaeus classifier of all living things
    Leonhard Euler the prolific mathematician
    John Dalton founder of modern atomic theory
    Thomas Young first to conduct a double-slit experiment with light
    David Brewster researcher of polarized light
    William Buckland geologist of the Noahic flood
    Adem Sedgwick geologist of the Cambrian
    Augustin-Jean Fresnel the physicist of light waves
    Augustin Louis Cauchy soulwinning mathematician
    Michael Faraday giant of electrical research
    John Frederick Herschel cataloger of the Southern skies
    Matthew Fontaine Maury pathfinder of the seas
    Philip Henry Gosse popular naturalist
    Asa Gray influential botanist
    James Dwight Dana systematized mineralogy
    George Boole4 discoverer of pure mathematics
    James Prescott Joule originator of Joule’s Law
    John Couch Adams codiscoverer of Neptune
    George Gabriel Stokes theorist of fluorescence
    Gregor Mendel pioneer in genetics
    William Thomson, Kelvin physicist of thermodynamics
    Georg Friedrich Riemann the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
    James Clerk Maxwell father of modern physics
    Edward William Morley Michelson’s partner in measuring the speed of light
    Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Ages
    Georges Lemaitre showed us the universe is expanding
    George Washington Carver pioneer in chemurgy
    Arthur Stanley Eddington the astronomer who ruled stellar theory

    While some of these may disagree with my Biblical doctrine, each believed in the same God and Savior, Jesus Christ as I.

    And not the least of such a list is the inventor and developer of the Van de Graff Generator, developed for practical use by my mother’s first cousin (my second cousin, I suppose), Robert J. Van de Graaff at Princeton University. His development of this generator was an initial step toward atomic research. He was a believer in Jesus Christ. Incidentally Princeton University originated as a Christian University until tragically overrun by secularists such as so many of you.

    But I thank my God and Savior — you and I have a choice to believe or not in Jesus Christ — His creation, etc.

    In Christ eternally,


  16. PH (A Baylor Student)

    Robert Mark’s area of expertise is not biology. It takes a biochemistry degree to understand how chemical phenomenon in meiosis leads to changes in the genome. Biochemists don’t even have a complete understanding yet. Its not possible to set up a proper evolutionary infromatics experiment because the chemical background isn’t there.

    Robert Marks is also a lier because the funds for his evolutionary infromatics project where charted for another. The university and funders were paying for one type of research from him and he cheated them out of that money.

    P.S. Baylor is one of the few bastions of intelligent Christians. Please, until you get a science degree, shut your trap you grumpy old man.

    P.S.S. Ever generation of young people improves upon the last.

  17. Yes, indeed. But take whatever you need to know about even, say, law. All of those types are weighted differently and for good reason. Gangsta, you say, “But others do not for a myriad of reasons.” Yes. Probably. But one can be right. One can be partially right. And one can be wrong. But there are times that one can be not even [add italics] wrong. This is a very important distinction.

  18. GangstaGangsta

    I agree with you 100%. But, others do not for a myriad of reasons. That is an important question we should be asking.

    FYI: Testimonial evidence is that of established or credible sources. It has also been referred to as anecdotal evidence.

  19. Gangsta! Don’t fall into the trap of relativism! Not all evidence is created equal! Your point is not one of equal distinction!

    I must go to work, so my thoughts will ruminate on this throughout the day. However, if I could be so terse so as to head off a lengthy debate on ‘types of evidence’ may I just pose the question, Which type of evidence gets the the best and most accurate types of information? Further, what is this testimonial evidence you speak of? It smacks with arbitrariness!

    As I mentioned – science gets results. You will find reminders of that as you read this. Now turn your head to the right and look for a result. Now left. You are surrounded.

  20. GangstaGangsta

    Expreacherman and Anthony, the truth is neither of you know whether it’s ID or EVO.

    Expreacherman relies on anecdotal evidence and testimonial evidence.

    Anthony relies on statistical evidence and analogical evidence.

    Now the question becomes what type of evidence should you hold in higher regard? Odds are nothing can make either of you change your minds and you can wax poetic on semantics when it boils down to you both being WRONG…. and right. Okay, now flame me.

  21. ExP:
    You state: “God is eternal — no beginning — no end. He was not created — but is eternally existent.” in response to Infidel’s repeated prodding. I find it difficult to swallow that you can claim (Or the church can claim, or he can claim for himself) this incredible attribute – to live forever! – I think I would like this! But what follows is its corollary: why can’t the universe be eternal? If your god can, why can’t my ‘ultimate?’ Its seems egocentric, ‘chosen,’ as the Jewish acolytes know it. I call it conceited. If you can claim that property, so should I be able to. And. It just so happens that our physics is beginning to add to this discussion in empirical ways.

    Which brings me to this thought: Faith, to me, feels like the mother of all cop-outs. It makes us content with what we know. It makes us content with, or be okay with not knowing. I am a biochemist in training. There isn’t a part of me that can stand not knowing. I need to investigate. I need to get the answer. To have to swallow some Bronze Age worldview of, say, the Rock of the Ages would be death to my greatest faculty: reason. Reason: the part of me that insists on knowing – The Ages of the Rocks.

    Science gets results. And what it reveals is part of what makes life worth living. Evolution by natural selection EXPLAINS. Creationism or Intelligent Design (sometimes called Creationism in a cheap tuxedo) does not explain anything. It merely postulates. And in doing so, merely begs the questions again, Who made God?, thus promoting an infinite and sterile regression.

  22. All,

    May I offer something? Call me a fence sitter – but two, maybe three things:

    To be employ or be called ‘ignorant’ is often meant and received in an offensive manner. However, in and of itself it merely means that one does not know or have all of the available knowledge or evidence. ExP, sir, you could conceivably accuse myself or Infidel, etc. of being ‘ignorant’ on theological content or ‘the truth that is Jesus Christ.’ Mutatis mutandis, Infidel could accuse you or I or Michael etc. of being completely ‘ignorant’ on network servers, or shipbuilding or fishing for walleye or whatever it is he is knowledgeable at. Both of you in those situations were merely accusing the other of being, how shall we say, uninformed? Second, what we should hope in each other, especially given the age and implications of the debate, having been as old as our first ability to think and reason and ponder, is that he or she will marshal all of their rationality, passion, hopes, fears, and gut feelings (but not too much of the last one) on the debate and offer them forward without employing argumentum ad hominem. This is civility. So, in a turn, I completely agree with you, sir: one should not level disrespectful or derogatory remarks. However, I would be remiss if I did not end by saying that it would be a stretch to accuse Infidel of this: his remarks are accurate given the transcript: Michael’s knowledge of the theory of evolution by natural selection does appear to be limited; he does appear ignorant of even the basic elements.

    Thanks, bye.

  23. ExP,

    Re: #1, so it’s not ok to be forthcoming and directly state a conclusion, but it’s perfectly ok to insinuate it.

    Re:#2, appropriate response since we are talking about insane thoughts, right?
    Just regurgitate dogma and axioms to answer the same argument you base your rejection of scientific ideas.
    So what if a scientist said “Matter and Energy are eternal — no beginning — no end. They were not created — but are eternally existent..”

    Would you buy that? Then why do you buy the God argument? To me, that reasoning is insane and schizophrenic … however, just to be clear, I am not saying that you are insane and schizophrenic.

    Also, it’s very rich that you ask me if I am happy about having choices. Do you mean to tell me that you are pro-choice???

  24. Infidel,

    #1 — I did not call you insane — but your thoughts — Derive whatever you wish from that.

    #2 God is eternal — no beginning — no end. He was not created — but is eternally existent..

    Your choice to believe it or not. I choose to believe.

    Aren’t you happy we have choices in life and are not coerced into believing the Politically Correct — YET!

    In Christ eternally,


  25. ExP,

    my statement was not an accusation. An accusation is not based on any evidence. My statements were a conclusion based on what Michael is saying, pretty much the same way you call my thoughts (and therefore me) insane.

    Is it not ignorant and foolish to refer to a finding that is asserts that a bone sample is 22,000 years older than (what they think) the age of earth is?

    Of course you have every right to remove my comments, since this is your blog, but please don’t justify it by calling my statements derogatory. If one doesn’t like criticism, they should not make opinions public, especially in area where they obviously lack expertise.

    One more thing, you haven’t answered a question I directed at you…:

    You said that the big bang can only happen if someone created matter, so the answer is… “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ”
    So who created god?

  26. Poor deluded Baylor University. Not only is it football program at the bottom of the Big 12, but now its academics are at the bottom of the entire NCAA. Give up the notion of gods and godesses you southern baptist hicks. Its time to realize that christianity needs to take its place with other dead religions in that mass grave that we call mythology.

  27. This is how I see it — every religion has a different view of God, and every Christian has a different take on the Bible (whether the earth is literally young or old, whether adulterers should be stones, etc.).

    I don’t have a problem with personal religious experiences, but with people saying that their interpretation of an ancient book is the one and only truth. Be a bit more open-minded, and realize how much of what you believe is by your own choice.

    I’ll keep on paying attention to the evidence, based on a broad community of thousands of trained scientists. Yes, it’s a conspiracy, one to root out the problems with hypotheses and organize them into robust theories that make useful predictions. Evolution works as omnipresent tool of biologists. Doubt it if you want, but somehow I don’t think that will keep you from enjoying the medical fruits of evolution-based research.

    Unless you destroy science education in this country, so that we’re eventually too poor to afford medicine.

  28. Infidel,

    You accused Michael with the words, ..”…foolish and ignorant…”

    A thesis, insane thoughts and illogical theories are acceptable from you — but pejoratives are not.,

    Such are not necessary and add nothing to your specious discussion. Any further such derogatory personal attacks will prompt me to close your end of the discussion.

    In Christ eternally,


  29. Infidel,

    Yes, indeed. It looks to be a combination of cherry picking and envy. On one hand, the creationists are quick to quote, cite, or otherwise advertise anything that remotely looks like science because they, in their private worlds, do actually see the explanatory power of science. It is as you alluded to earlier in their trips to the hospital. Most (I say most, because there are also the aspects of physics and chemistry) of modern medicine is built upon the study of life – biology – and as Dobzhanksy said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” They are willing to laud the efforts of doctors and nurses and the life saving treatments they and their children and loved ones receive but have nothing but vituperative venom for the theory that explains, at its base, why their child’s meningitis was susceptible to antibiotics. This, of course, is why they cherry pick. Either way, the gaps in science shrink every day. And I would think that one should have a general respect with regard to scientists. They are the ones of the front lines trying to elucidate the mysteries of life so that we might be able to more fully understand the mystery and, with any luck, save lives.

    I want to know, really really badly, is there anything that a follower of Christ (or any person of faith) could come to see, taste, smell, feel that would falsify his or her belief in Christ? Anything at all? This is a very important question.


  30. Anthony,

    actually you brought my attention to something else. The critical thinker, Michael, is happy to try to use that data to support his biblical understanding of nature, AND he has no problem with the fact that very same paper talks about the sample being 28,000 years old.

    What is it Michael? How can you make a statement like that when the sample is more than 4 times older than what your Bible says the earth age is? Or was it the devil who put the bones there to confuse and tempt us?

    Another piece of advice, don’t talk about science because you sound how you really are; foolish and ignorant.

    Here’s the link to the paper that “disproves” evolution:

    Here’s the last sentence of this paper: “Therefore, Paglicci 23 (as well as other remains studied under comparable conditions in the future) promises to be a valuable source of information on DNA diversity in the past, and can pave the ground for a more exhaustive understanding of human evolutionary history.”

  31. Steven Sullivan

    Url deleted by Admin

  32. Oh, and by the way, the “evolutionary tree” does not keep biologists up at night. In fact, it helps them sleep at night because very nearly everything fits just as the theory of evolution by natural selection would have predicted.

  33. Michael:

    You, sir, are terribly misinformed.

    That we have isolated and sequenced sections of the DNA from Cro-Magnon and found them to be incredibly similar to that of modern humans is not a feather in your cap – it is a buttress to neo-Darwinism. You see, Cro-Magnons are ancestors of modern day Europeans – this is supported by anatomic comparison, DNA sequences, and mDNA sequences. The outcome you would like to see, that is, to support and ID/creationist point of view, is one where Cro-Magnon and modern human DNA differs SUBSTANTIALLY. This would be difficult for evolutionary biologists to make sense of.

    In regards to the Cro-Magnon DNA, you beg “Where is all this genetic evolution?” Well, first you must synchronize your time scale – these samples were taken from bones 28,000 years ago. This is a blink of an eye in geological/evolutionary time. Scientists have determined mutation rates and the differences, slight as they are between modern man and Cro-Magnon, are precisely where scientists would have predicted them to be.

    And, for my curiosity, can anyone tell me why the so many people of faith find such disdain in evolution by natural selection? It honestly boggles my mind why it should matter. Is it simply because it contradicts the Christian book? I just don’t understand, I guess.

    Well, no disrespect intended. Simply wanting to make a correction. Have a good weekend all…

  34. Michael,

    you’re obviously not a scientist since you have no idea what you are talking about. The evolutionary tree is by no means the litmus test of evolution. In fact there are multiple evolutionary trees depending on which characteristics you are looking at.

    With the completed genomes, we get a better estimation of the evolutionary tree, and this is what science does: keep collecting data to refine models and conclusions. Unfortunately this is too much for you to understand because you have been indoctrinated and trained to think dogmatically, as in this is the absolute truth and no one can question it.

    This also points to another virtue of science, the ability to recognize when something is wrong, accept it, and improve it.

    Baylor School of Medicine has a good reputation in the scientific world. Unfortunately, they are going to lose that standing if they continue down this path. If you are sad that a research department insists on the scientific method, then do me a favor: next time you are sick, do not take medicine because they are the product of the secular way. If you do take medicine, then you are just a hypocrite, which, frankly, is quite the norm in your peers.

  35. It’s sad to see such comprise of a so-called Christian college not only endorsing evolution, but requiring their staff not to believe in intelligent design as an alternative or otherwise you cannot work there. Baylor is just as bad as a secular school.

    There are new discoveries all the time, that show design or the data is not matching up with evolution…For example, there are now hundreds of animal genomes of which we are aware of. The evolutionists used this data to see if the evolutionary tree was correct. They were highly disappointed as only a very small fraction even indicated the evolutionary tree while the vast majority did not. On the higher levels of the tree it was even worse.

    The recent discovery of Cro-Magnons had it’s DNA tested, as it turns out, it has the same DNA as modern man. So where is all this genetic evolution? Answer: there is none. And why are Cro-Magnons still considered less than modern man when the DNA says otherwise?

    Like I said, it’s a terrible shame that Baylor has lowered itself and join forces with those who deny God in His Creation.

  36. “The Big Bang theory is a stretch for an evolutionist — because the materials (energy) which supposedly comprise the Big Bang had to be there (created) to go “Bang.” Without “something created” it would not even be a whimper.

    Your Tanakh and my Bible have the answer in Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ”

    So who created god?

  37. A quote from St. Augustine:

    Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.

    Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

    If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

    Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

    — De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (“The Literal Meaning of Genesis”)

  38. MatJew,

    The Schroeder link did not work.. but never mind as I will stick to the Genesis account and apparent age concept rather than the billions of years idea.

    You said, “alleges that Adam was actually the 974th generation of mankind..”

    I believe the Biblical account that affirms Adam as the first man according to the book of Genesis. In addition we see:
    1 Corinthians 15:45, 47
    And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
    The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

    I disagree with Mr. Nachmanides, since he is a mystic, using portions of the Bible. Unfortunately there are many such mystics subverting the Bible who claim the “truth” from that time period — before and since. We see Mohammed, Joseph Smith and scores more — but there is no truth therein.

    MatJew, I appreciate your comments and scholarship but obviously we disagree on theology. I appreciate that you agree that evolution is a myth.

    Thanks for your comments.

    In Christ eternally,


  39. Richard,

    Amen!! There is proof.

    In Christ eternally,


  40. Richard Bowman

    This may be a meaningless comment to most, but if you had of been there on Feburary 11, 1999 and held my son the day he was born, you would of been convinced that he was wonderfully created by the Living God!!!!!

  41. ExP, check out Gerald Schroeder. The Genesis account of 5768 years, and the billions of years that physics, geology, and paleontology claim, need not contradict.

    In fact there is a Jewish midrash from thousands of years ago that alleges that Adam was actually the 974th generation of mankind (Moses was the 1000th). That would about work with anthropology’s claim of the arising of modern man some tens of thousands of years ago.

    Nachmanides, from 900 years ago, based on biblical sources and mysticism, claimed that the universe was over 4 billion years old. No problem with geology.

    A biblical view holds that before people entered ‘fallen’ time, before experiencing the expulsion from Eden, they lived in an eternal ‘now’, where passage of time was subjectively felt differently. (check out hunter-gatherer groups…) Only after Adam’s sin, do we feel time as we currently do– thus 5768 years.

  42. MatJew,

    A very thoughtful piece… even though I disagree with some of it. The “billions of years” might disagree with my theology but you make a great point, no “intermediate species.”

    The Big Bang theory is a stretch for an evolutionist — because the materials (energy) which supposedly comprise the Big Bang had to be there (created) to go “Bang.” Without “something created” it would not even be a whimper.

    Your Tanakh and my Bible have the answer in Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Thanks for your comments.

    In Christ eternally,


  43. seedsaside, the evidence has never shown any intermediate species. All billions’ of years’ worth of fossil record.

    The existing theory of evolution by random mutation + natural selection works just fine to explain variation, but not speciation. I do know a lot about it– I’ve taken MA level classes in evolutionary biology and count David Stern of Princeton as a friend of mine.

    The problem is that this has become a religious debate on BOTH sides. A theory that does NOT yet adequately explain the facts has been put out as if it’s something that needs to be BELIEVED in, in contrast to most science (nobody need believe in Einsteinian physics to use nuclear power!). And counter-theories (I personally like ‘punctuated equilibrium far more than ID, anyway) have also been hijacked for explicitly religious purposes.

    Unfortunately evolutionary scientists and pundits have sought to explain, not just describe, the process by which life arose and developed on earth. They have exceeded what science was really capable of.

    Big Bang theory is perfectly compatible with theology (at least with Jewish theology, which I know the most about); it says what happened, and even aspects of how, but leaves plenty of room for WHY and HOW to bigger forces than science can grasp. Evolutionary EVIDENCE has that room– but the theory does not.


  44. Sorry Seedsaside, spurious sophistry.

    Jesus Christ is the answer to your confusion.

    Check Him out at:

    In Christ eternally,


  45. @Expreacherman:

    So let’s follow the logic:
    The lamp did not create itself.. a person designed and built it for a specific purpose.

    1. So is it for lamps, cars, well anything human produces. But each kind of lamp wasn’t designed by a single designer, nor are cars for that very same reason. Therefore, this is “evidence” for multiple designers… I think you thus made an argument for pantheism (there’s nothing that urge people to think there’s only one grand designer of Nature, while there are so many designers for manufactures).

    2. Let’s look at cars. Okay, they are designed. But cars from the 1920’s are not the same from those we see now (same for lamps or whatever manufactured good). Actually, there are lines were you can see improvements over time. Yep, cars evolved. Your argument is therefore an argument for evolution too.

    Thanks and cordially,

  46. Lynda,

    Great Biblical based comment — as usual.



  47. For anyone who thinks they are a Christian, but that it’s okay to believe in evolution: if you don’t believe Genesis, the rest of the Bible is gibberish to you. If you can’t believe God’s Word regarding ‘In the beginning, God created….’ then you can’t believe anything Jesus said (He quoted from Genesis, you know) and you can’t believe that He rose from the dead and saved you from your sins.

    In your worldview lie the seeds of destruction. God is a God of His Word Who cannot lie. Deal with it, or deal with the consequences of your disbelief. It’s that simple.

  48. TotalTransformation,

    Thanks — a great comment — and true!

    In Christ eternally,


  49. Seedsaside.

    You said:
    For example, lighting a lamp doesn’t require to have faith in electricity.

    You already have faith — based upon your knowledge and experience.

    The lamp did not create itself.. a person designed and built it for a specific purpose.

    Electricity did not discover itself — a person discovered it and designed ways to use it, the lamp.

    Intelligent design in both cases..

    You must have faith, that when you flip the switch for the lamp — it will work. You believe the switch and the lamp will do what they were designed to do — light the lamp. The same applies with everything around you.

    Faith is required by you that your automobile will start when you turn the key. You may not think about it but you know from your automobile manual and your experience that it will start when you turn the key. This illustration goes for everything around you — too many to mention in this small comment section.

    Our “manual” is God’s Word, the Holy Bible. It is absolutely reliable when applied properly.

    In Christ eternally,


  50. Man’s rebellion against God indeed knows no limits.

    “Biblical Christians hold many different views, and some of them hold to the theories of evolution”

    Indeed, when God’s word tells us that death entered the world through sin, we should instead believe that death was an essential part of God’s plan of natural selection and survival of the fittest. This makes perfect sense. So what do you think when you read Paul’s statement that sin (death) entered the world through one man (Adam), and was conquered by one man (Christ)? Of course we must reject Paul, correct? For death has always been a part of creation, no?

    How sad, the lengths to which even believers will go to avoid looking foolish in the eyes of the world. But they receive their reward in this world- as they are patted on the back for compromising God’s word and avoid the scorn and derision directed towards those foolish enough to believe in God’s complete roll in Creation.

    “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

  51. We ultimately must understand — that non-celled precursors did not create themselves.

    I leave this possibility open, I don’t need a “must”. My take on this, based on biochemistry is that it could well ‘happen’, as you put it. I don’t blame anybody to think otherwise though.

    Your strong faith in randomized evolution is commendable but wrongly placed.

    i/ Please try to understant evolution is not just a “randomized” process. It is not.

    ii/ I do not have “faith” in evolution, I lean where scientific evidence is. It doesn’t require faith, it only require understanding the facts. My concern with “faith” though is that people who only rely on faith fail to acknowledge there are other ways to understand the universe (and science is one). For example, lighting a lamp doesn’t require to have faith in electricity.

  52. Ozy,

    Choose your ancestors if you think you can.


  53. Traitors to the cause! They just made My List!

  54. There is nothing wrong with accepting that we evolved from monkeys.

  55. Seedaside,

    Your entire premise neglects the facts.

    You said:
    “the single celled ancestor came from non-celled precursors.”

    “one makes the hypothesis of appearance of self-replicating molecules from clay substrates”

    We ultimately must understand — that non-celled precursors did not create themselves. — these supposed self-replicating molecules in clay substrates would not be accidents. If such ever existed, they were created. Your strong faith in randomized evolution is commendable but wrongly placed.

    Everything in this marvelous, well timed, perfectly ordered and aligned universe was created by the God of the Universe. It did not just “happen.”

    In Christ eternally,


  56. Thanks Chris,

    Absolutely true… Appreciate your comment.

    In Christ eternally,


  57. Matjew,

    Thanks for your views..

    It seems it would to take more faith to believe in a theory of Random Evolution than to believe in Creation and Intelligent design by the God of the Universe.

    As a former atheist who tinkered with the theory of evolution and Darwinism, I am now a believer in Jesus Christ and the Bible. I am also relieved to know that I am not the random, accidental ancestor of primordial pond scum.

    In Christ,


  58. Jon,

    I appreciate your stopping by and thanks for your comment. I pray for Baylor, the students and administration.

    True, these circumstances show that there is a sign of life at Baylor, but with a proper Biblical administration, this kerfuffle would never have happened at all..

    No, I am not a scientist… just a retired preacher with a hobby of science for four decades, studying the Bible and Creation Science.

    I appreciate your stand for the truth.and your school.. Maybe others like you can influence Baylor to return to the truth.

    In Christ eternally,


  59. >”Who created Man? Darwinian Evolution says Man evolved from single celled organisms. God tells us that He created Man from the clay/dust.”

    Ultimately, the synthetic view of evolution holds that the single celled ancestor came from non-celled precursors.

    And among scientific theories about the origin of life, one makes the hypothesis of appearance of self-replicating molecules from clay substrates. This, for example, would allow Christians to both accept science and a metaphorical reading of the bible as compatible and valid. (there is no mention anywhere in the bible that creation of Man was not evolutionary guided).

    Taking the bible litterarily such as creationists do is somewhat ways more “ridiculous” than evolution science. For bible is self-contradicting at many places (please read it –and for a good reason, it’s a self assemblage of different texts written by different authors). I don’t mind people taking it as an absolute truth, as long as they don’t try to push this historically and scientifically inaccurate view as valid science (which is what political ID proponents do).

  60. Chris Taylor

    “Biblical Christians hold many different views and some of them hold to the theories of evolution”…

    Careful…Who created Man? Darwinian Evolution says Man evolved from single celled organisms. God tells us that He created Man from the clay/dust.

    Job attests to being made from clay/dust

    Apostles attest to the idea of returning to clay/dust

    God bless,

  61. ponderingpastor

    You write: “Biblical Christians reject the ridiculous theory of Darwinism and evolution.”
    Wrong. Dead wrong. Biblical Christians hold many different views, and some of them hold to the theories of evolution. You don’t get to define “Biblical Christians”.

  62. There are more than “just mere” random mutations to lead to evolution. Please try to understand the concept of natural selection, which is the next step, and it’s adding a lot, conceptually speaking. Natural selection is the non-random choice among randomly produced variants over time, and this quite different from the ‘randomness’ you stated. Moreover, DNA is not a binary code at all. I understand your position but I think you would more appropriately consider the debate at hand if you understand biology and evolution better.

  63. Baylor is wrong, as is the whole anti-ID intolerance, for a simple reason. The PC police demand that all of us believe that the entire history of life on earth happened RANDOMLY (natural selection, etc.). Any questioning of randomness is equated with heresy. In any other scientific discipline, such orthodoxy would be rightly seen as ridiculous.

    To raise the possibility that something more than mere random mutation reshuffling of binary DNA code led to all the complexity of life on earth is not heresy. It’s good science.

    Whether that ‘more’ is processing or programming, random or not, at higher levels of ‘code’ (as with computers, binary is only the most basic level, and the real information is stored at higher levels) or is a ‘more’ of some super-intelligent programmER, or any other possibility, is not so relevant. But to DEMAND compliance with a belief in randomness is no less ridiculous than demanding compliance in belief in God.

  64. I’m a recent Baylor alumnus. Now, I do understand why you’ve posted this — legitimately, Baylor is squelching any ID research. The Web site rules are technicalities which most departments never hear about.

    But please don’t post that “they” at Baylor have sunk to these depths. While ID lost in this case (as it did in the Dempski case), it’s first off not a strictly Baptist issue, because it simply has nothing to do with salvation, and secondly, at Baylor — and this is very important — it’s still a discussion.

    Most colleges wouldn’t have articles about this because those writing for the college newspapers would think the idea of ID too foolish to even write about seriously. Baylor, where the most liberal students are the ones reporting the news (I know, from personal experience), still has enough intellectual honesty to create the discussion.

    I’m not saying that’s good. I’m saying it’s not as bad as it could be, and I’m saying that the kerfluffle over this particular issue is a sign of life at Baylor, not the other way ’round.

    I don’t know if you’ll agree, and further (and no offense intended) I doubt that you’ve got many scientific arguments lined up on either side of this debate (I’ve done a bit o research, but I don’t either), but I do want to stand up, in some poor, partial, imperfect bway, for Baylor in this matter.