"A fanatic is someone who does what God would do if He knew the facts of the matter." Peter Finley Dunne.

"An evolutionist is someone who thinks he knows what God should have done."

Actually, the two-design issue goes back to my biggest complaint about "the intelligent watchmaker" argument.

Why did God create a world that LOOKS like it evolved?

Short-age creationists require God to have created a huge lie.

I don't believe that a loving and lovable God would deliberately create a huge deception and then punish people for being fooled by it.

/Bevin

Then your biggest complaint is about what happens in your own mind.

There are other ways of LOOKING. You've chosen yours, and blamed it on God.

Yes, I can see that a touchy-feely emotional unscientific person such as yourself would perceive it that way

/Bevin

Transposition, by C.S. Lewis.

It really is a philosophical issue. The cartoon is coming from that position. It is an issue of world views. No dirt is not organic however it can be used to contrast the naturalistic and creationist world views - as the cartoon does.

Evolution is part of of the naturalistic world view. The term "evolution" is often used interchangeably with "naturalism" although it is not correct to do so. However when trying to have a healthy exchange of ideas, arguing over semantics is rarely helpful.

The evidence only supports the naturalistic philosophy when an individual is willing to accept certain assumptions. Even when these assumptions are accepted - which cannot be proven - the naturalistic world view has a lot of unanswered questions and "wacky" theories to explain some things.

Both world views, or philosophies, (naturalistic and creationist) have questions they cannot answer. Both come up with some "wacky" theories to explain some of the evidence. The evidence does not speak, it does not take a position one way or the other. The evidence is neutral. It is the individual examining the evidence that draws conclusions based on his or her world view or philosophy.

This simply is not true. It is provocative and not helpful to the healthy exchange of ideas.

In the mind of the naturalist who has accepted naturalistic assumptions about science, short-age creationism would require God to have created a huge lie. However God could have created the world 6,000 years ago, the evidence we find today could be logically explained to us within heaven's gates and God could still be a God of truth. But... that would mean the naturalistic assumptions are wrong.

This is a good example of a question that a naturalist would ask.

The naturalist looks at the world and to him or her it (the world) looks like it evolved.

The creationist looks at the world (scientists with PhDs included) and to them it looks like it was created.

Why the difference? Philosophy. It is more than talk on a cereal box.

What about the world WHEN EXAMINED IN DETAIL, LOOKS CREATED???

(a) The cell mechanisms look, as I have described above, evolved. "Tinkered" is the word used by the Nobel Prize Winner in cell biology I mentioned above.

(b) The gross anatomy looks evolved, as Gould shows in The Panda's Thumb

(c) The fossils in the rocks look evolved

(d) The continental drift shows long ages

(e) The C-14 dates show the world is way older than 7,000 years

(f) The archaeological evidence shows a world way older than 4,000 years

(g) The thermoluminescence dates show shows a world way older than 4,000 years

The difference is not how it looks, but whether you look

/Bevin

A lot of naturalistic assumptions there leading to such conclusions. I don't have the time to go through each one and would probably be wasting my time if I did. AiG's Answers book is pretty elementary but even it address most all of those items. Those that really want to learn how the creationist world view is a logical philosophical alternative to the naturalistic world view will find a lot of the answers in that simple book alone.

------

One quick example:



The naturalist starts off with the assumption that everything has a natural answer - as opposed to a supernatural one.

The creationist assumes the Bible is divinely inspired.

From the creationist philosophy:

• We don't know the original state of the cells when created by God in a sinless environment.
• We don't know the impact of the Fall and the Curse on the cells.
• We don't know the impact of 6,000 years of sin on the cells.
• We don't know the impact of 6,000 years of micro-evolution on the cells.