I thoroughly recommend Moondust if you’ve forgotten what was so amazing about the Apollo moon landings. The author interviews many of the guys who walked on the moon (there are only 9 of them alive today) and tries to get an answer to the fundamental question: what was it like to walk on the moon?

There is a documentary film coming out soon called In the Shadow of the Moon which is all about the moon landings, though I’m not sure if it will end up in any of cinemas here. I live in hope.

What troubles me most about this, is that the definition of evolution they have accepted is profoundly different to the definition of evolution generally accepted by the scientific community – largely due to the fact that the word “evolution” can mean many different things – change over time, common ancestory, Darwinism etc. Evangelical Darwinists have often exploited this vagueness to give the perception that anyone who opposes evolution, opposes well substantiated and completely uncontroversial ideas such as biological change over time.

So what does evolution mean to most scientists? Darwinism. It means that all life on earth has evolved from a common ancestor, through the process of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations (RM+NS). Moreover, there is no element of design to the world around us and every attribute of a human being exists only because it aided our ancestors in reproducing and passing on their genes.

It should be obvious to a Christian that this definition of evolution is completely incompatible with any variant of our faith. Regardless of time scales or common ancestory, the idea that we are solely the result of chance, conflicts completely with the idea that we were made with purpose in the image of God. Put simply, if Darwinism is correct, Christianity is fundamentally wrong. However, for an athiest the reverse is true. If RM+NS cannot explain all of the life forms on earth, then atheism is in big trouble, because no-one has proposed a plausible alternative explanation. Dawkins once said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fufilled atheist – clearly if Darwinism fails, the “intellectual” argument for atheism is gone.

Without even looking at the evidence for or against Darwinism one can see how much is at stake in this argument. To question the creative power of RM+NS is to question a theory which has become a core doctrine of atheism. To truly accept Darwinism is to accept the implication that all design and purpose is an illusion. The credibilities of two competing worldviews hang in the balance.

So please lets not be naive. We might regularly hear people denouncing creationism and intelligent design, calling their adherents stupid, but those people are not being objective. Scientists may have a reverential position in our supposedly enlightened society, but they are just people, with pride, prejudices and beliefs just like everyone else. We need to ask ourselves why we believe what we believe about human origins. Is it because we’ve been taught since our school days that only crazy people believe in creationism? Have we studied the facts for ourselves or have we just accepted the ideas of people who refuse to believe in God?

For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths. –2 Timothy 4:3-4

1. Interviewer asks Dawkins for an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.
2. Dawkins thinks for a while…
3. Dawkins goes off on one about fish and reptiles…nothing to do with the original question.

I’m sure we could all be a bit more graceful, except this is a man who is now forging a career out of making TV programs depicting all religious people as stupid or evil.

The idea of random mutations and natural selection producing limited beneficial changes in a species is completely uncontroversial. The idea of the same mechanisms producing the human genome from nothing is fantasy, but it’s a fantasy that forms the cornerstone of materialism, so it persists.

…we must ask ourselves why so many people get so excited about an area of science that should not concern them. For most of these correspondents know precious little science, and haven’t the stamina to engage in detailed argument. They are simply shocked and appalled that anyone would dream of challenging what they believe to be the consensus of “qualified experts,” whom they assume are a closed camp of hard-bitten materialists, with no time for religious or poetical flights.

The answer to this question is clear enough. People without a stake in a controversy pay little or no attention to it. They will hardly be vexed by assertions of one party or another, when the result of the controversy cannot touch their lives. It is rather when a person does have a stake, that he begins to care.

It follows that my most apoplectic correspondents have a stake in evolutionary controversies. They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against “religious superstition,” and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned.

I have one month left to finish my PhD thesis and a lot of work to do. I’m going to have to take a break from trying to reason with Darwinoids.

Stop and think about that. There is a time for studying and analyzing what we find in nature, and there is a time for just sitting back in amazement.

If you can manange a 1 hour lecture by Andy McIntosh (Professor of thermodynamics at Leeds University), you will learn to appreciate birds on a whole new level. They are masterpieces of design and engineering.

Please please watch it as someone has put it on google video but it might not be around for long. Even if only half of it is true, it’s a bombshell.

The lead character has a difficult time getting them to see that these deaths aren’t accidents, because none of them want to accept that their village isn’t the peaceful idyll that it appears. They choose to believe very improbable descriptions of how things happen by accident rather than come to terms with an unsettling reality.

Who does that sound like? How about the Darwinists who cling to vague naturalistic explainations of lots of random accidents when evidence of design is staring them in the face.

They guys at UD have been posted lots of videos showing the stunning molecular level complexity of the biological world, and the following one is my favourite:

If at any point during this video you think to yourself “gosh…there must be some kind of design behind all that,” bear in mind that our favourite Judge Jones ruled that those kind of ideas are “unscientific” and “unconstitutional,” so think again.